House of Representatives
22 May 1957

22nd Parliament · 2nd Session



Mr. SPEAKER (Hon. John McLeay) took the chair at 10.30 a.m., and read prayers.

page 1743

MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS

Sir ARTHUR FADDEN:
Treasurer · MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · CP

– I desire to announce to the House that, during the respective absences abroad of the Prime Minister and the Minister for Labour and National Service, I shall act as Prime Minister, and the Minister for Primary Industry will act as Minister for Labour and National Service.

page 1743

QUESTION

WOOL

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

– Has the

Minister for Primary Industry seen recent press reports of criticism by some Bradford wool importers that Australian wool exporting firms are resorting to unfair trade practices? Has the honorable gentleman any information about this most important matter that he can give to the House?

Mr McMAHON:
Minister for Primary Industry · LOWE, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– I have not heard reports that Bradford importing houses have criticized alleged unfair trading practices by Australian exporting interests. Frankly, I do not think that such practices could be on a very large scale - if they exist at all. Of course, there is always a possibility of some difficulties occurring in a huge market like the market for Australian wool, but there are normal commercial procedures by which difficulties can be adjusted if, perhaps, there is wrong invoicing or an incorrect description of wool. If I may make a comment quite off the cuff, as it were, I may say that, at this stage, one might expect some complaints, because the statistical position of wool is very sound, and there would be an expectation that the price will remain high for some time. It is usually found, under such conditions, that purchasers of wool make unjustified complaints. I am glad that the honorable member has raised the matter. The reputation of Australian exporters is justifiably high and must be protected. I do not think that the practices referred to occur on a scale that can be regarded as significant. Nonetheless, I shall have a look at the matter, and shall let the honorable gentleman have a reply.

page 1743

QUESTION

DARING CLASS DESTROYERS

Mr L R JOHNSON:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I ask the Minister for the Navy whether he will endeavour to explain the factors responsible for the issue of a Commonwealth naval order which has recently been circulated among commanders of Daring class destroyers. This order attracts the attention of the commanders to the unusual tenderness of the hull of the Daring class destroyers and warns against the danger of attempting to moor in a scend, a swell, or squally weather. Have these craft been the subject of inferior design, specification, or construction, and if not, why is it necessary to adopt special precautions when mooring them for fear of damaging the hull? Will the Minister ensure that any apparent weakness will be remedied when constructing new ships, and will he guarantee the seaworthiness of all Royal Australian Navy craft against mooring hazards?

Mr DAVIDSON:
Postmaster-General · DAWSON, QUEENSLAND · CP

– I have not seen the instruction referred to by the honorable member for Hughes. I shall certainly look into the matter, but I assure him from the general information I have already received, and from inspections which I and others have made of this class of ship, both during construction and on take-over, that there is no faulty workmanship in the building of these vessels. As I said in the House a few weeks ago, they are completely designed and constructed in Australia and the workmanship has been of the highest order. The ships are a valuable contribution to the strength of this country’s Navy. They are particularly designed for the type of work which they would be called on to carry out in the defence of Australia. It may be that some special instructions have been given because these ships are of all-welded construction, and a particular method of mooring may be desirable because of that fact. But the instruction would not arise because of any faulty construction or from any factor of design which would be against the successful operation of these vessels.

page 1743

QUESTION

POSTAL DEPARTMENT

Mr WHEELER:
MITCHELL, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask a question without notice of the Postmaster-General. Will the honorable gentleman examine the suspension of mail deliveries to residents of a section of Old Northern-road, Castle Hill, where an alteration of the mail run has deprived some of my constituents of a service they have enjoyed for many years? Will the honorable gentleman also investigate a report that at the Pennant Hills post office difficulty is being experienced in buying sheets of postage stamps? Lastly, I hold in my hand an envelope, which was sent out unstamped by a Commonwealth department, and for which the unfortunate addressee was forced to pay postage at double rate before delivery would be made. The irony of the situation is that the envelope came from the Taxation Branch and contained an assessment, not a refund cheque. As a consequence, I ask whether the Postmaster-General will consider directing that unstamped Commonwealth letters be delivered without fine, and that if postage is collected it be from the department which should have paid it originally.

Mr DAVIDSON:
CP

– The honorable member’s first question deals with the alleged cessation of postal deliveries in the Castle Hill area. This is a subject which the honorable member has discussed with me and on which he has made representations on behalf of his constituents over quite a period. I said “ alleged cessation “ because, although there has been a delivery of mail in the area referred to for many years, it has not been truly a departmental delivery. The position has been, as in quite a number of other areas, that the contractor, who is under the normal contract to deliver mail outside a 1-mile radius of the post office, has also, for the convenience of people living within that radius, delivered their mail for them. That has never been part of his contract with the department, but he has done it as a gesture to the people living within the 1-mile radius. The department takes no exception to any arrangement of that type, but it so happens that quite recently, the contractor himself decided that he would not continue this delivery of mail within the 1-mile radius. A clause in the contract which mail contractors enter into with the department specifies that deliveries are to be made outside the 1-mile radius. That clause cannot be altered in any one particular contract, because if that were done it would have to apply right throughout Australia at considerable expense to the department. The department has had to inform the honorable member and his constituents who have complained that the situation does not amount, as far as the department is concerned, to the withdrawal of a privilege which they have had previously and that the postal service being given to them is on all fours with mail deliveries throughout Australia. A suggestion that the honorable member has discussed with me, and which has been considered also by some of the persons complaining, is that there might be no objection from the department if the contractor were given a small sum by the people concerned to enable him to continue with the service. I say quite definitely in this case, as with any other similar case, that provided the contractor carries out quite satisfactorily the provisions of his contract with the department, there is no objection whatever to any private arrangement being made by other people regarding their mail deliveries.

The honorable member for Mitchell referred also to difficulties being experienced in buying sheets of postage stamps at the Pennant Hills Post Office. I do not know the position that prevails there, but I should think it arises from the fact that the greatest number of people who go to a post office for stamps buy only one or two. Strange to say, they buy stamps just for their immediate requirements. Therefore, there must be a quick service provided for people who buy small numbers of stamps; and special counters are provided for those who wish to obtain large numbers. I shall have a look at the Pennant Hills position to see whether that is the reason that applies there.

I shall have a look at the matter of the tax imposed by the department on an unstamped letter sent out from the department of one of my colleagues. I am sure that my colleague will say that this is one of the little things that sometimes happen but do not constitute normal procedure within the department. I certainly could not issue an instruction that would apply to all departments, but I am sure that my colleague would view very favorably any suggestion by the honorable member for Mitchell in any particular case.

page 1744

QUESTION

BRITISH IMMIGRANTS

Mr BIRD:
BATMAN, VICTORIA

– I ask the Minister for Immigration whether the Department of Immigration is having difficulty in securing sufficient shipping accommodation to bring out the additional immigrants expected in the “ Bring Out A Briton “ campaign. Have the British shipping companies informed the Minister that they intend to increase fares for British immigrants to such an extent that the recently announced, stepped-up British immigration campaign is threatened?

Mr TOWNLEY:
Minister for Immigration · DENISON, TASMANIA · LP

– Yes; one of the limitations on British immigration to Australia has always been the availability of ships. The position is not getting a great deal better. At the same time, we have an agreement with the shipping people to bring out as many British citizens as we think we can place in accommodation and in work. As we are attempting to step up the intake of British people we made an agreement with an Italian shipping line for a vessel called “ Fairsea “ to carry British immigrants. It accommodates about 1,500 persons and we hope that the ship will make four, and possibly five, trips a year. Our plans suffered a little setback recently when a rather large vessel, “ Otranto “, was taken off the run. We had expected her to bring 1,500 immigrants on her last voyage and to be available for other trips, but she is no longer available. It is difficult to get vessels for this work. No attempt has been made to have fares raised since an agreement was reached some months ago; but after “ Otranto “ was taken off the run it was suggested that if we paid an increased fare we might be able to have that ship restored to the service. As we were able at that stage to get “ Fairsea “. we did not feel inclined to pay the extra money to bring “ Otranto “ back.

page 1745

QUESTION

MIDDLE EAST

Mr LUCOCK:
LYNE, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Minister for External Affairs whether he can give the House any information about the situation in Jordan.

Mr CASEY:
Minister for External Affairs · LP

– I think it can be said with truth that the situation in Jordan is appreciably better than it was. King Hussein has the firm support of the Jordan-Arab army and it looks as though he can cope with any situation that may arise in the immediate future. Financial and economic problems of considerable magnitude are involved in maintaining the economic and social structure of Jordan, but I think it can be accepted that those who are in the best position to help in that matter will not be indifferent to such problems.

The second point of consequence in respect of Jordan is the recent meeting between the kings of Saudi-Arabia and Iraq. They issued a communique denouncing interference by outside States in the affairs of any Middle East country. That was clearly a pointed reference to the interference and mischief-making of Egypt and Syria in Jordan. I believe it is a healthy warning to those two countries. The meeting of these two kings seems to mark the end - one hopes that it does - of the longstanding feud between the dynasties of Saudi-Arabia and Iraq, which has dislocated the politics and the stability of the Middle East for a great many years. On the whole, I think that one can say that the situation in the Middle East, particularly in Jordan, is appreciably better than it was.

page 1745

QUESTION

NORTH-WEST OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Mr WEBB:
STIRLING, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I direct the attention of the Deputy Prime Minister to a question which I asked the Prime Minister on 15th September, 1955, dealing with north-west Western Australia, and which the right honorable gentleman only partially answered. I asked the Prime Minister on that occasion about a plan submitted to him by an all-party committee of the Parliament of Western Australia, and the Prime Minister concluded his reply on that occasion by saying that the proposals were being examined carefully. When I raised this matter on other occasions, the right honorable gentleman said that I would get a reply to those proposals, which he said I already knew about and which were set out in detail in item No. 1 of the notice-paper of 26th March. I remind the Deputy Prime Minister that he gave me a written reply concerning this matter in which he indicated that the papers were on the Prime Minister’s desk before he left on his visit to Japan but the matter had not been dealt with due to the pressure of business. What I want to know is: Do I have to wait for a reply to this very important question until the Prime Minister returns from Great Britain, or can the Deputy Prime Minister give me a reply in the meantime?

Sir ARTHUR FADDEN:
CP

– Since the honorable member directed the question to the Prime Minister, obviously he must wait until the Prime Minister himself replies to it, if he wants a reply from the Prime Minister personally. However, I will have a look at the matter and see what information I can pass on. No doubt Mr. Hawke will discuss this matter with me during the next couple of days.

Mr Webb:

– I have been waiting a couple of years.

Sir ARTHUR FADDEN:

– Another year will not hurt.

page 1746

QUESTION

RETIRING AGE

Mr TIMSON:
HIGINBOTHAM, VICTORIA

– The House may recall that in February of last year, some fifteen months ago, I asked the Minister for Social Services whether he had received a report from the inter-departmental committee set up by his predecessor to inquire into the retiring age. The Minister, in the course of his reply, said that the committee was meeting from time to time, that the investigations were of a comprehensive kind, and that as soon as he received the report he would examine it and submit it to the Prime Minister for his consideration. I now ask the Minister whether he has any explanation for the long and perhaps unreasonable delay, and whether there are prospects of the committee reaching finality and submitting a report in the immediate future, since the question is causing great public interest.

Mr ROBERTON:
Minister for Social Services · RIVERINA, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP

– Let me say, in reply to the honorable member, that to extract a report from an inter-departmental committee is a Herculean task at any time, but to attempt to extract a report from an inter-departmental committee set up to investigate a controversial question such as the compulsory retiring age is a task that would daunt Hercules at his best. I regret the delay in the production of this report, and on behalf of the departments and the people responsible for the delay I offer to the House and to the community my humble apologies. I take some comfort and pride from the fact that the delay has not been caused by the Department of Social Services, or the officers of that department, who have discharged their responsibility in full. I can assure the honorable member that I shall do all that lies in my power to drive the inter-departmental committee to a conclusion - any kind of a conclusion. When a conclusion is reached, the report should surely follow. Unhappily, there is no known way to reduce the period of gestation, if I might put it that way, that must precede the production of a document of this kind.

page 1746

QUESTION

ATOMIC ENERGY

Mr SWARTZ:
DARLING DOWNS, QUEENSLAND

– Did the Minister for Supply see a recent report indicating that the Government of Israel was investigating the possibility of using atomic explosives to make a channel across the Negev Desert? In view of the possibilities that this development could open up for developmental works, such as water conversation, in Australia, will the Minister indicate whether any information is available regarding the production of suitable atomic explosives which could be used with safety for such purposes?

Mr BEALE:
Minister for Supply · PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– I saw the report to which the honorable member has referred. I do know that scientific work is going on in connexion with this matter, although I have no knowledge of the stage that it has reached. I agree with the honorable gentleman that this is a matter of importance, and I shall see what information I can get together and shall let him have it.

page 1746

QUESTION

REVIEW OF AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY ORDINANCES

Mr J R FRASER:
ALP

– I ask the Minister for the Interior whether he can say what stage has been reached in a review of the laws of the Australian Capital Territory being undertaken, I understand, by the Attorney-General’s Department. If the Minister cannot indicate the stage that has been reached, will he take every step to see that this review is completed as expeditiously as is consonant with thoroughness? In particular, will he endeavour to have some progress made with the review of ordinances touching on the proposed threeyear period of training for nurses at the Canberra Community Hospital, the lunacy laws of the Territory, child welfare and social welfare generally?

Mr FAIRHALL:
Minister for the Interior · PATERSON, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– I am sorry that I cannot give the honorable gentleman a precise answer to his question. However, I give him an assurance that I shall look into the matter and see what can be done about it.

page 1747

QUESTION

OIL

Mr SNEDDEN:
BRUCE, VICTORIA

– Has the Minister for Supply any information to give the House concerning reported traces of oil in Western Australia?

Mr BEALE:
LP

– This matter comes within the province of my colleague, the Minister for National Development. I have no knowledge of it myself, but I will ask the Minister to furnish a report and let the honorable gentleman have it.

page 1747

QUESTION

HOUSING

Mr MORGAN:
REID, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. Has the right honorable gentleman had any indication from the Prime Minister that, as well as recovering from his recent illness, as I am pleased to learn, he has also recovered from his mental blackout-

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The honorable member will withdraw the remark.

Mr MORGAN:

– I withdraw the remark; it was not made in a personal sense. Has the Prime Minister a more lucid approach to the housing situation in Australia, and, in particular, has he read the recent report of the United Nations that Australia, along with many more backward countries, is lagging well behind in coping with the housing needs of its people? If this has given a more lucid picture of the situation to both the right honorable gentlemen, can the DeputyPrime Minister hold out any hope for the relief of the plight of the homeless in the near future before the Prime Minister renews his peregrinations overseas?

Sir ARTHUR FADDEN:
CP

– The honorable member’s question is based on an absolute misquotation of the report to which he has referred. Therefore, it requires no answer.

Mr Morgan:

Mr. Speaker-

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honorable member is out of order.

Mr Morgan:

– I rise to order.

Mr SPEAKER:

– What is the point of order?

Mr Morgan:

– 1 have been misquoted.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honorable member will take his seat. He will have an opportunity after question time to make a personal explanation, if he has been misrepresented.

page 1747

QUESTION

MEAT

Mr BRIMBLECOMBE:
MARANOA, QUEENSLAND

– Can the

Minister for Primary Industry say whether there has been an upward trend in meat prices in the United Kingdom? If so, have the increased prices been reflected in prices being paid for cattle by meat export companies in Australia?

Mr McMAHON:
LP

– It is correct there has been a quite substantial rise in London prices for Australian beef over the course of the last few months. The rise has been sufficiently substantial almost to cut out the deficiency payments which have been due from the United Kingdom to the Australian Government. I think the real cause of this is the lack of production in the United Kingdom at present, due to seasonal conditions. It is probably also due to the fact that there has been a strike in’ the Argentine, so that shipments of chilled beef from the Argentine to the United Kingdom have not taken place. I do not think that, up till the present moment, these increased United Kingdom prices have been reflected in the Australian market. However, I have not seen any reports in recent weeks. I shall try to find out the reason and inform the honorable gentleman.

If I may make one interpolation, I think the House would like to know that the price of Australian butter on the United Kingdom market has increased from about 248s. per cwt. to 307s. per cwt. sterling over the last few weeks. That means a rise of about 8d. per lb. to the Australian producer. I think there may be a shortage of supply in the near future, and I am quite hopeful that that price may even be exceeded.

page 1747

QUESTION

BRITISH IMMIGRANTS

Mr DUTHIE:
WILMOT, TASMANIA

– My question, which is directed to the Minister for Immigration, is supplementary to the question asked by my colleague, the honorable member for Batman. Is the cost of bringing British immigrants to Australia about £140 each at the present time? Will the Government be forced to reduce the intake of much-needed British immigrants as a result of the shipping companies’ present attitude? Has the Government any plans to break the stranglehold of the shipping companies? Will the Government consider using aircraft, as it did with the Hungarians, to maintain the quota of British immigrants?

Mr TOWNLEY:
LP

– I think the honorable member for Wilmot would be aware, as others are, that we are prepared to pay considerably more for immigrants from Great Britain than we are for other immigrants. The break-up is not exactly as he mentioned. The fare from England to Australia is £162 10s. Australia pays £142 10s. of that amount. The immigrant himself pays £12 10s., and the British Government pays £7 10s. Those amounts are in Australian money. The fares of Hungarian people and other European people who are coming to Australia by aircraft are not paid by the Australian Government. The aircraft are chartered by the Inter-governmental Committee on European Migration, and that committee makes all the arrangements. The fares are paid by the Inter-governmental Committee, the funds of which come substantially from the United States of America, although there are several other members of the committee. The aircraft being used to bring European people here are American, chartered by the organization of the Intergovernmental Committee, and are paid for by them.

Mr Pollard:

– And they are overloaded.

Mr TOWNLEY:

– Apparently I must tell the honorable member some basic facts about aircraft. Aircraft are under international control. The Internation Civil Aviation Organization lays down the loading limits, fuel requirements and capacity of all aircraft. Once those basic principles have been laid down the civil aviation authorities in each country, including Australia, see that they are observed. If the honorable member is thinking about the D.C.4 aircraft that lost a motor over the Timor Sea the other day, I can tell him that even after loading that aircraft with all the passengers and luggage for which there is accommodation, the load is still below the all-up weight allowed under any international agreement.

page 1748

QUESTION

OIL

Mr WENTWORTH:
MACKELLAR, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether it is a fact that, during the past nine months, events in the Middle East have considerably increased the urgency of finding local sources of crude oil, and have made this a proper object of government policy on the highest level. Can the Deputy Prime Minister inform the House what specific additional measures have been taken by the Government during this period to encourage the search for oil in Australia and New Guinea? Can he tell the House what further measures are contemplated by the Government in the near future to achieve this end? Has he any information regarding the Indian Government’s programme for the support of oil search in that country? If he has not detailed information on these points immediately available, will he prepare a statement for the information of honorable members and the public early in the coming recess?

Sir ARTHUR FADDEN:
CP

– Obviously, I have not the detailed information called for by the question. However, I shall comply with the honorable member’s request to have the matter looked into, and a statement will be prepared as early as possible after the House rises.

page 1748

QUESTION

PHARMACEUTICAL BENEFITS

Mr WHITLAM:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES

– The Minister acting for the Minister for Health will recollect that before a pharmaceutical benefit can be put on the free list a recommendation has to be made by the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee, the recommendation has to be adopted by the Minister, and the Minister’s decision has to be gazetted. I ask this question of the honorable gentleman in the light of some answers that he gave me last week in reply to questions on the notice-paper. Will the Minister tell me why, as appears from his answers to my questions, it takes the Minister between one month and four months to decide whether he will accept the committee’s recommendation. And, while I appreciate that all doctors and chemists must be notified of additions or alterations to the full list, will he also explain why, after the Minister has accepted a recommendation, it takes sometimes three months and sometimes four months to gazette the Minister’s decision?

Mr TOWNLEY:
LP

– The honorable member has stated that some of these matters take between five and seven months to deal with. I am acting for the Minister for Health for only two months.

page 1749

QUESTION

NATIONAL SERVICE

Mr STOKES:
MARIBYRNONG, VICTORIA

– I would like to preface my question to the Minister for the Army by explaining that recently, in this place, I suggested that national service trainees should, on being called up for training, be given the option of serving the total period of that training continuously with the Regular Army. I said that this would totally discharge their liability for such training, but that an essential condition must be that they signified their willingness to serve overseas should the country be mobilized for war, thus forming a reserve at reasonable readiness which would supplement the Regular Army component in case of national emergency. Is the Minister aware that, by imputing to me a statement that trainees should be sent overseas during their training period, certain sections of the press have given an entirely different meaning to the able and reasonable explanation given by him on this matter?

Mr CRAMER:
Minister for the Army · BENNELONG, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– My only concern about this matter, which is properly raised by the honorable member for Maribyrnong, is that there should be no misconception in the minds of the public, or of national service trainees, in regard to what is contemplated. I am not concerned whether I am misreported or not - that makes no difference to me at all - but it is important that the people should know the facts in this matter. The suggestion which the honorable member made at the secondreading stage of the National Service Bill has a good deal of merit, and is being investigated. It is important to emphasize that if, as he suggests, the Regular Army were to offer to train for a period of six months boys now eligible for national service, those boys would be enlisting in the Regular Army. Any one who enlists in the Regular Army can be sent overseas if necessary - that is part of the enlistment undertaking. The honorable member was not suggesting in any way that, having been given six months training, these young men should be sent overseas.

In replying to a question asked recently by the honorable member in this House, I pointed out that these lads would be not national service trainees but, in effect, members of the Regular Army. The National Service Act does not empower this Governmentor any one else to send national service trainees overseas. The honorable member’s suggestion involves a complete departure from the old idea, but it has merit because there may be young men who would like to undertake a term of continuous training with the Regular Army. It is the provision of such an opportunity that we are investigating at present. I do not want the false impression to be created that any consideration whatever is being given by this Government to sending national service trainees overseas.

page 1749

QUESTION

SOCIAL SERVICES FOR ABORIGINES

Mr BRYANT:
WILLS, VICTORIA

– On 11th April, after considering the matter for three weeks, the Minister for Social Services answered a question of which I had given notice. The question was -

What is the estimated saving to the Government by the non-inclusion of aborigines in social service payments?

The Minister’s answer was as follows: -

The answer to the honorable member’s question is “Nil”.

Yesterday, I received from the Minister an answer to a further question that I had asked on notice. The question read -

What is the estimated extra cost of social services if the exclusion provisions applying to aborigines were removed and, for example, maternity allowances, pensions, unemployment benefits, Ac, made payable to some organization or trustee on behalf of aborigines considered to be incapable of handling their own affairs?

The Minister’s answer read as follows: -

Section51, placitum xxvi, of the Constitution gives the Commonwealth Parliament power to make laws with respect to- “The people of any race, other than the aboriginal race in any State, for whom it is deemed necessary to make special laws.”

In the circumstances, and because of the absence of information as to sex, conjugal conditions and age groups, an estimate of the cost of paying social service pensions to all aborigines who are not at present exempt from the State control laws could have no practical value.

I now ask the Minister three questions: First, how does the Minister line up his two statements? Secondly, when can we expect to have a more responsible social attitude displayed in the administration of the welfare of human beings, in this instance aborigines? Thirdly, when will the Minister approach the Bureau of Census and Statistics to see if he can get the necessary figures?

Mr ROBERTON:
CP

-The replies I gave to the honorable gentleman’s questions on notice were accurate in every detail, and I have nothing to add to them. The honorable member ought to know - indeed, he ought to have known before he addressed his questions to me on notice - that the Constitution lays down in explicit terms that whereas this Commonwealth Parliament has power to make laws with respect to people of all other races, it has no power to make laws with respect to people of the aboriginal native race of Australia. Because of that lack of power, before an aboriginal native can become eligible for social service benefits he must be exempted from the State laws governing his welfare. As soon as he is exempted from those laws he becomes eligible for Commonwealth social service benefits in precisely the same way as every other member of the community, and those social service benefits are paid when he qualifies for them.

page 1750

QUESTION

ANTHROPOLOGICAL EXPEDITION

Mr LESLIE:
MOORE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Is the Minister for Air aware that an anthropological expedition is to go into the far-eastern part of Western Australia, and possibly the central area of that State, in order to investigate the conditions of the nomadic aborigines in these areas? Has any approach been made to the Royal Australian Air Force, or the Department of Air, for assistance in connexion with this expedition, which is, I think, Dr. Thomson’s expedition, in order to enable it to overcome the difficulties associated with the long distances it has to travel, and other circumstances obtaining in the areas it will visit?

Mr OSBORNE:
Minister for Air · EVANS, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– The honorable member refers, I assume, to Dr. Thomson’s forthcoming expedition for anthropological purposes to the Lake Mackay area in the far-eastern portion of Western Australia on the border of the Northern Territory. Yes, the Department of Air is aware ‘ of this expedition. It has been approached for assistance by Dr. Thomson and, being satisfied that the expedition is of some national value, has agreed to provide assistance in two ways. The first is to help with communications, through Air Force channels; and the second is to provide a limited number of supply drops by aircraft of the Royal Australian Air Force when the expedition reaches its furthest-out limits.

page 1750

QUESTION

PRIME MINISTER’S SECURITY GUARD

Mr WARD:
EAST SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I desire to know from the Deputy Prime Minister whether it is still the practice for the Australian Security Intelligence Organization to provide the Prime Minister with a personal bodyguard. If so, did the guard accompany the Prime Minister when he paid his recent courtesy call on his old friend, the Emperor of Japan? If no guard was provided on that occasion, was it because the likelihood of a personal attack on the Prime Minister was considered less likely in Japan than it is in Australia? If no security guard is now provided for the Prime Minister, when was this practice discontinued? Is it now admitted that the original provision of a security guard was only a political stunt which has lost any value it might have had for the Government?

Sir ARTHUR FADDEN:
CP

– All I can say is that, if the honorable member could twist his body as effectively as he can twist his mind, he would be the world’s best contortionist.

page 1750

STEVEDORING INDUSTRY INQUIRY

Mr HAROLD HOLT:
HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP

– I lay on the table the following paper: -

Stevedoring Industry Act 1954 - Report of Committee of Inquiry into Stevedoring Industry.

Honorable members will recall that, in November, 1954, I appointed a Committee of Inquiry into the Stevedoring Industry in accordance with the provisions of section 10 of the Stevedoring Industry Act 1954. The committee made an interim report, which I tabled on 15th March, 1956. The report that I now present has been made upon the completion of the committee’s inquiry. It supersedes the interim report, and embodies the matters of fact and the conclusions contained therein. Printed copies have just come to hand. Honorable members will have an opportunity to study the report during the parliamentary recess.

page 1750

REFERENCE TO UNITED NATIONS REPORT

Mr MORGAN:

– I should like to make a personal explanation. The Deputy Prime Minister said that I had misquoted a United Nations report.

Mr HAROLD HOLT:
HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP

– Which report was it?

Mr MORGAN:

– I referred to a report that I had read recently.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! How was the honorable member misrepresented?

Mr MORGAN:

– The Deputy Prime Minister said that I had misquoted the report. I submit that the right honorable gentleman misrepresented me. I distinctly read in the report that one-third of the world’s population was homeless.

Mr HAROLD HOLT:
HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP

– Will the honorable member identify the report?

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The honorable member may not debate the subject-matter of the question that he asked. He may deal only with the alleged misrepresentation, and I ask him to confine his remarks to that matter.

Mr MORGAN:

– I referred to the text of the report, which I said showed that Australia was well behind in coping with housing needs. That statement does not rest merely on the United Nations report. It has been announced in the press to-day that the New South Wales Premier-

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The honorable member will resume his seat.

Mr HAROLD HOLT:
HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP

– I rise to order. The honorable member for Reid has sought to make a personal explanation on the ground that the Deputy Prime Minister misrepresented him by stating that he had misquoted a passage from a United Nations report. I suggest that the House cannot form a proper judgment on that conflict of views until the honorable member for Reid identifies the report and points out the passage on which his statement was based. If that is done, we shall be in a position to judge whether or not his statement was accurate.

Mr Calwell:

– On the point of order that has been taken by the Minister for Labour and National Service, I should like to say that it would be right and proper for the honorable member for Reid to cite the passage of the report upon which he based his question. The House could then appreciate the accuracy of his statement. 1 think that the honorable member has the information in his possession. I think that he knows the report, and that he could give the date on which it was submitted to the United Nations. The Deputy Prime Minister did not know anything about the passage of the report referred to in the question. The Minister for External Affairs leant across and told him that the honorable member for Reid was misquoting the report.

Mr HAROLD HOLT:
HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP

– The honorable member is not taking a proper point of order.

Mr Calwell:

– I am speaking to the point of order taken by the Minister. He is entitled to state his view, and I am entitled to state mine. The truth is that the Minister for External Affairs misinformed and misled the Deputy Prime Minister, who, as a consequence, made the remark to which the honorable member for Reid has rightly objected. I think that, if you will bear with the honorable member, Mr. Speaker, he will be able to supply the information that the Minister for Labour and National Service wants. When he has done so, the House can decide whether Australia is the backward country in regard to housing that the United Nations allegedly says it is.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The only matter before the Chair is the personal explanation that the honorable member for Reid wishes to make. He must confine himself to stating how he has been misrepresented.

Mr MORGAN:

– The Deputy Prime Minister said that I had misquoted the United Nations report. I admit that I was quoting an extract from the report that I had read in a newspaper, but I did not think-

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The honorable member was out of order in doing so.

Mr MORGAN:

– I did not think that the report would be challenged by the Deputy Prime Minister. Indeed, I do not think that he knew of it. I shall look it up in the Library, and shall produce it in the House later to-day.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! That disposes of the honorable member’s personal explanation.

page 1752

AUSTRALIAN WOOL TESTING AUTHORITY BILL 1957

Bill presented by Mr. McMahon, and read a first time.

Second Reading

Mr McMAHON:
Minister for Primary Industry · Lowe · LP

– by leave - I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this bill is to establish an Australian Wool Testing Authority to control and administer a wool-testing service in Australia. The legislation is the result of many months of investigation by a committee of wool-buyers, brokers, scourers, fellmongers and carbonizers, representatives of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization, and officers of the Department of Primary Industry. The committee examined in detail the possibilities of starting a testing service in Australia, the need for which has been felt for many years. The Australian Council of Wool Buyers was largely instrumental in the formation of the committee, and wide support for the proposals has been evident all through the negotiations. The committee also received invaluable advice and assistance from Mr. J. E. Duncan, Wool Supervisor of the New Zealand Department of Agriculture, who has been closely associated with the successful operation of a wooltesting scheme in New Zealand. Mr. Duncan visited Australia last year at the invitation of the Commonwealth Government. Members will recall the authority with which the Central Wool Committee spoke for the industry during the war years, and it is important to note the view expressed by that body on this subject in its report for the financial year 1941-42, in the following terms: -

In the past history of the Australian Wool Trade, and during the present scheme to date, all carding types, whether scoured or carbonized, have been sold on the basis of a maximum yield of 100 per cent., and, where the moisture content in the wool has been less than the Bradford Standards, it is obvious that there has been a delivery of bone dry wool in excess of the weights called for by the said Standards. It is now felt that if the actual moisture content of each lot of treated wool reappraised by the Central Wool Committee could be accurately determined such wool could thereafter be sold on the actual contents of the bale.

It is the hope of the Central Wool Committee that official conditioning houses will eventually be established in Australia, whereby Australian stan dards of percentage moisture regain may be determined which will be in line with normal Australian atmospheric conditions, and that scoured wool, carbonized wool, tops, noils, wastes, yarns and cloths, can thereafter be dealt with locally and/ or be exported on the certificates of the Australian conditioning houses.

The principal function of the testing service will be, initially, to test the moisture content of scoured and carbonized wool. Through this operation exporters of these classes of wool will be able to ensure that the wool is shipped in accordance with internationally accepted standards of moisture content. Apart from avoiding claims for financial adjustments for variations from invoiced weights, which are at present a feature of this type of trading, the service to the extent it is availed of by the trade will also assist in avoiding the loss of export income which can and does arise from wool being shipped with a lower moisture content than permitted by the accepted standards. This means that less wool is paid for than is actually sold.

The bill provides for the setting up of a statutory authority to be known as the Australian Wool Testing Authority to conduct the scheme. The authority will consist of one representative of each of the following: -

The Australian Council of Woolbuyers.

The National Council of Wool Selling Brokers of Australia.

The Wool Scourers, Carbonizers and Fellmongers Federation of Australia.

The Australian Wool Bureau.

Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial

Research Organization.

The Department of Primary Industry.

There will be one additional Government representative recommended by the Minister for Primary Industry.

The investigating committee advised that in setting up a testing service in Australia, it would be worthless to establish a controlling body whose certificates would not receive recognition by the International Wool Textile Organization. The International Wool Textile Organization is an affiliation of wool textile bodies in various countries which has adopted “ International Regulations for the Conditioning (or Testing) of Wool “. Certificates issued by a testing service must conform with the standards laid down in the regulations before the certificates will be recognized by the International Wool Textile Organization. It will be seen from this that an Australian exporter of scoured or carbonized wool would not benefit at all if his customer overseas would not accept the certificate of moisture content because it lacked recognition under these international standards. Since 1933, when its regulations on this subject were first introduced, the basic principle of recognition of wool-testing certificates adopted by the International Wool Textile Organization is that the testing must be carried out by a publicly controlled organization.

The Government therefore decided that a statutory authority was the most satisfactory means of administering the testing service, first because it is essential that the form of the administering authority should be acceptable by international wool textile standards and secondly, it was desired that the wool trade in Australia should have the maximum possible participation in the venture in those circumstances.

The industry did not wish - and the Government wholly concurs in this - to see the activity carried out by a government department as is the case in New Zealand. I may mention that, during its preliminary investigations, the committee ascertained that an authority such as is established by this bill would be acceptable to the International Wool Textile Organization and the British Wool Federation. As to the powers and functions of the authority set out in the bill, a question which may occur to honorable members is, perhaps, the size of the authority’s board in relation to the proposed somewhat limited initial activity of the authority. However, it is planned to expand the functions of the testing service to embrace eventually the wide variety of tests it is usual to provide in similar overseas establishments to cover wool and wool products as and when such tests are desired by the industry. These would include the testing of various characteristics of wooltops, clean yield of greasy and slipe wool, residual matter in scoured wool, fibre diameter measurement, and yarn tensile strength. Whilst at present it is intended that testing centres will be established initially in Melbourne and Sydney, it is envisaged that ultimately the service will be extended to other important wool-selling centres in Australia. The Melbourne centre will be set up first in order that experience of technical difficulties may be gained before other centres are established.

It is intended that the authority ultimately will be self-financing. Initially it will operate on an advance from the Treasury of £40,000 which is estimated to cover the original outlay for the establishment of the two centres in Melbourne and Sydney. The investigating committee estimated that for each centre a capital outlay of £10,000 will be required whilst an additional £10,000 for each centre would be necessary as a provisional fund to cover running expenses to tide over the period until income is received by way of fees charged for the issue of certificates. As to repayment of these initial advances, it has been estimated by the investigating committee that the capital expenditure element should be repaid in approximately five years while the advance in respect of running costs should be repaid in approximately three years. The question of financing the centres to be established after Sydney and Melbourne will be the responsibility of the authority and provision has been made in the bill for the authority to negotiate further loans.

All in all, it was considered by the Government that the establishment of a testing service in Australia is a step that is long overdue. Many other exporting countries of semi-processed wool, for example, the United Kingdom, France, Belgium, and New Zealand have had such a service for many years. In the United Kingdom the Bradford Conditioning House was established in 1891. It has been estimated that the early stages of the scheme, that is the testing of scoured and carbonized wool, could add a significant amount to our export income annually. When the scheme is expanded to embrace the testing of wool tops, the conditioning certificates issued by an internationally recognized Australian testing authority would be clearly beneficial to the Australian export trade in wool tops.

It is not possible at this early stage to make a precise estimate of the eventual amount that could be added to our export earnings when the scheme is operating fully for all wool and wool products. However, I would venture to say that the benefits which could accrue to Australia could be in the vicinity of £1,000,000 each year, as a conservative estimate. The inauguration of this Australian testing service represents another practical demonstration of the Government’s determination to give every possible assistance to the wool industry. In particular this measure meets a request from the industry for facilities which are considered necessary as an improvement in the already efficient marketing of Australian wool and wool products. I commend the bill to honorable members.

Debate (on motion by Mr. Pollard) adjourned.

page 1754

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY SUPREME COURT BILL 1957

Second Reading

Mr BEALE:
Minister for Supply and Minister for Defence Production · Parramatta · LP

.- I move-

That the bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this bill is to make a number of amendments to the Australian Capital Territory Supreme Court Act 1933- 1956 which are necessary or desirable to facilitate the administration of justice in the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory. The bill contains no matter of controversial character. The amendments effected relate to the regulation of the practice and procedure of the court by ordinance, the procedure for prosecution of indictable offences, and the administrative arrangements of the court.

The Australian Capital Territory Supreme Court Act contains some specific provisions relating to the practice and procedure of the court in regard to certain matters. The act also provides that rules of court may be made governing the practice and procedure of the court in regard to other matters. The specific mention of rules of court only has raised a doubt as to whether any matter touching practice and procedure may be contained in an ordinance. It is, however, frequently difficult to characterize a particular law as one relating to practice and procedure rather than as one relating to substantive law. It may therefore be impractical to divorce entirely from an ordinance matters relating to practice and procedure and, indeed, it would not always be desirable to do so. This is particularly so in ordinances relating to oaths and evidence, and probate and administration. This bill therefore amends a number of sections of the act to permit the matters that can be dealt with by rules of court to be dealt with also by ordinance. The clauses of the bill which carry out this are clauses 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12 and 13.

Section 53 of the act provides that any person committed for trial for an indictable offence triable before the Supreme Court may be put upon his trial before the Supreme Court by information in the name of the Attorney-General or of any other person who has been appointed by the Governor-General in that behalf. In the absence of any provision in the act enabling the Attorney-General to file an information against an accused person who has not been committed for trial, or enabling the Attorney-General or other person appointed for the purpose by the Governor-General to decline to proceed in an appropriate case against a person who has been committed for trial, doubts have arisen whether the Attorney-General or such other person can exercise these powers. Section 53 has accordingly been redrafted to remove these doubts by including provisions in this regard similar to those contained in the Judiciary Act and in the criminal law of the States.

There is no provision in the act at present for the appointment of a Deputy Registrar of the Supreme Court. The administrative work of the court is now such that it requires the appointment of a Deputy Registrar, who will at all times be capable of exercising the powers and functions and of performing the duties of the Registrar. Clause 10 of this bill makes provision accordingly. This is a straightforward measure designed to facilitate the work of the court, and I commend the bill to honorable members.

Mr CALWELL:
Acting Leader of the Opposition · Melbourne

– Members of the Opposition offer no objection to this bill and are willing to give it a speedy passage through the chamber. The principles in the bill as outlined by the Minister, and already approved in another place, commend themselves to the Opposition, and I shall not delay the passage of the measure.

Mr J R FRASER:
ALP

– I take this opportunity to express my appreciation of the manner in which justice has been afforded the people of the Australian Capital Territory by His Honour the Judge of the Supreme Court in this Capital Territory, and the officers and members of the legal profession associated with it. As the Minister has pointed out, the administrative operations of the Supreme Court have been extended to meet additional demands that have been made upon the institution. It is appropriate at this stage to point out that the time has arrived, and indeed is long past, when the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory should be properly housed in a separate, dignified building. The Government should delay no longer in taking action to provide proper accommodation for those who are charged with the administration of justice for the people of the Capital Territory.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In committee:

The bill.

Mr CALWELL:
Acting Leader of the Opposition · Melbourne

– I hope that this measure is the forerunner of a larger and more important piece of legislation to come before the House, perhaps not in the life of this Parliament, or of the next one, but at some later time. I refer to a bill that will establish Canberra as the permanent seat of the administration of justice by the High Court of Australia.I hope that the High Court will be located in Canberra in the same way as the Supreme Court of the United States of America functions from Washington.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Bill read a third time.

page 1755

AUSTRALIAN ANTARCTIC TERRITORY BILL 1957

Second Reading

Mr BEALE:
Minister for Supply and Minister for Defence Production · Parramatta · LP

.- I move-

That the bill be now read a second time.

This bill is a very minor measure consequential upon the Australian Capital Territory Supreme Court Bill. The Australian Antarctic Territory Act applies the laws from time to time in force in the Australian Capital Territory to the Australian Antarctic Territory, and gives the GovernorGeneral power to make ordinances for the latter Territory. The act also provides that the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory has jurisdiction in the Territory and that the rules of court for the time being in force under the Australian Capital Territory Supreme Court Act apply in the Territory as if the Territory formed part of the Australian Capital Territory.

The amendments to the Australian Capital Territory Supreme Court Act relating to the regulation of the practice and procedure of the court by ordinance will necessitate that the practice and procedure so regulated should be as applicable to the exercise of jurisdiction of the court in the Australian Antarctic Territory as it is in the Australian Capital Territory. Clause 3 achieves this result. The opportunity is being taken of including, in conformity with the practice in legislation relating to other external territories, a provision expressly covering the exercise by the Governor-General of the power of clemency in mitigating punishment for offences committed in the Territory. The ambit of the power so given under clause 4 is identical with that possessed by the Governor-General in relation to offences against the laws of the Commonwealth. I commend the bill to honorable members.

Mr CALWELL:
Acting Leader of the Opposition · Melbourne

– The Opposition supports the measure.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate.

HEARD ISLAND AND McDONALD ISLANDS BILL 1957.

Second Reading

Mr. BEALE (Parramatta - Minister for

Supply and Minister for Defence Production) [11.42]. - I move-

That the bill be now read a second time.

This bill is almost identical with the bill which the House has just passed. The Heard Island and McDonald Islands Act makes similar provisions for the application of the laws of the Australian Capital Territory to Heard Island and McDonald Islands and for the exercise of the jurisdiction of the

Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory in those islands. This bill makes the same consequential amendment regarding the practice and procedure of the Supreme Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction in Heard Island and McDonald Islands as did the last bill in relation to the Australian Antarctic Territory. It also makes a similar provision for the exercise of the Governor-General’s power of pardon and remission. I commend the bill also to honorable members.

Mr CALWELL:
Acting Leader of the Opposition · Melbourne

.- The Opposition supports the bill.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate.

page 1756

DAIRYING INDUSTRY BILL 1957

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 21st May (vide page 1739), on motion by Mr. McMahon -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Mr FREETH:
Forrest

.- There has been an increasing tendency of late to query whether the cow is an efficient instrument for converting vegetable oil into the food required for the human body. We see the rise of the production of synthetic vegetable oils and their increasing consumption, apparently because in many parts of the world they can be produced more cheaply than butter and also, apparently, because the medical profession has of late struck a blow at the dairying industry by suggesting that vegetable oils, synthetically manufactured and reinforced with vitamins, are a better food for the human body than natural butter. I raise these points because they illustrate some of the problems facing the dairying industry in Australia to-day. These problems fall into two categories. There is, first, an Australia-wide problem, that of the total production of butter and ils marketing; and, secondly, there are what may be referred to as local problems in particular areas of Australia. I shall say something at a later stage about the problems that confront the State of Western Australia.

For many years now butter has presented a problem for Australia. It has accounted for a substantial part of our export income, but marketing has had to be carried on under conditions of more intense competition than probably any other of our major primary products. That intense competition overseas has stimulated the ingenuity of the Australian people to provide some form of marketing scheme. In the first instance, this was demonstrated by the equalization scheme, which, undoubtedly, has conferred great benefits on the dairyfarmer in Australia. In war-time, the marketing of butter, as apart from production problems, became comparatively easy because the whole of the production was acquired by the Government and disposed of on a government-to-government basis to other governments which were its allies. Because the objective was, not a profit for the butter-producer, but the successful prosecution of the war, the problem of marketing did not really arise.

To some extent, that state of affairs carried over into the post-war era. The honorable member for Lalor (Mr. Pollard), who, quite rightly, claimed that his government had conferred some benefits on the Australian dairy-farmer, quite overlooked the atmosphere which surrounded the legislation which he introduced into the Parliament in those days and disregarded the greater difficulties that exist to-day. The honorable member was able to offer a guaranteed price for the whole of the production of the dairy-farmer in those days because the Australian Government still had a contract with the United Kingdom Government to take the whole of our exportable surplus of butter. In addition, there was a rigid price-fixing scheme existing in all the States of Australia - a carry-over from war-time price-fixing - under which prices were pegged throughout the country and, therefore, the cost of production in Australia was kept down to a minimum.

Even then, that scheme did not operate to the satisfaction of the dairying industry, and I suggest that the reasons for dissatisfaction with it in those days would probably arise again if the scheme offered by the honorable member for Lalor and his colleagues on the Opposition side were put into effect. The honorable member suggested that there should be a guaranteed price for the whole of the production of butter and cheese in Australia, but he did not say what price he was prepared to guarantee. He did not say whether it would be equal to the actual cost of production. That was one of the quarrels that the dairy-farmers had with the original scheme. They maintained that although the Government had said that they would be paid the cost of production, they were not paid what they considered to be their real cost of production. There were arguments about the allowance for the labour of the dairyman and his family. There were arguments about the rate of interest that should be allowed on capital and about the value that should be put on land and other assets, such as cattle. There were very wide differences of opinion between the government of the day and the dairying industry on those matters.

Under the five-year stabilization scheme which succeeded the scheme introduced by the Labour government, the dairying community was a great deal more satisfied with the guaranteed price. While the Government still had a contract with the United Kingdom, it could proceed from year to year with a reasonable assessment of the type of return which the dairy-farmer could expect from his production. There is no doubt that a great deal of stability was given to the dairying industry during the first fiveyear stabilization plan of this Government. Unfortunately, during the last few years that stability has tended to disappear, owing to the violent fluctuations of prices in the overseas markets. That is the major problem that confronts the marketing of Australian primary products.

In view of the tendency to substitute margarine for butter, for world demand to fall and for violent price fluctuations to occur which bring export prices far below the cost of production, the dairy-farmers must consider whether it would be in their interests to increase the production of butter in Australia. It has been alleged that this Government has asked the dairy-farmers to increase production, and that has been seized upon by many of them as a sort of excuse to demand greater price guarantees. I would say that they have a wrong impression. This Government has asked for greater efficiency in dairy production. It asks the farmers to increase production economically. It has never asked them to be, so to speak, front-line crusaders, who, regardless of personal consequences, have a patriotic duty to increase butter production at all costs. That would be an entirely wrong conception of what this Government regards as the right approach to primary production. Production must be on an economic basis. Otherwise it should not take place. That is of vast importance, particularly to Western Australia.

I propose to turn from the general problem of marketing to the particular problems of Western Australia. During the first four years of the five-year stabilization plan which is now expiring, Australian incomes from dairy farming improved, on an average, by 17 per cent., but it is interesting to note that there are wide discrepancies in various parts of Australia. In Western Australia, dairying incomes increased by only 6 per cent, over those four years. In other words, they hardly kept pace - in fact, they did not keep pace - with living costs and production costs. In Victoria, they increased by 48 per cent., which is an indication that, in that State at least, dairy-farming can be conducted on a far more economic basis than in Western Australia, under present conditions. If we in Western Australia were inclined to take a parochial view, we could say that the Victorian production is in part to blame for the poverty of the Western Australian dairy-farmer, because the huge exportable surplus comes mainly from Victoria, and it is on the exportable surplus that the farmer incurs the greatest loss.

Western Australia does not produce sufficient butter to meet the requirements of the people of that State. It might be said that because we require 1,000 tons, or 1,500 tons, of butter a year from the eastern States to meet our requirements, obviously we cannot produce as economically as dairy-farmers in Victoria can produce, and I should be the first to agree that that is so. But I will not agree that butter cannot be produced economically in Western Australia, given a programme of progressive development, nor will I agree that butter produced cheaply in Victoria could compete successfully with butter produced in Western Australia if freight, transport and distribution costs were added to the cost of production of Victorian butter. In other words, in the interests of Australia, and also in the interests of efficiency, it obviously would pay to have production in Western Australia at least brought to the stage at which the State could supply its own requirements of butter fat.

I doubt whether this five-year stabilization scheme of the Government will achieve that result. I think that it will do only what was quite apparent in the first five years; it will benefit, in the main, the dairyfarmers of Victoria and the producers in well-established dairying areas where production is relatively cheap. If there is to be any increase of production because of this five-year plan and the encouragement it affords to the dairy-farmer, I believe that that increased production will occur in the eastern States and not in Western Australia, where it is desirable that production should be increased. There are two qualifications involved in that. First, if overseas prices increased, and secondly - and it is regrettable that this must be faced - if seasonal conditions in the eastern States, such as drought years, reduced consumption in those States, the return to the Western Australian dairy-farmer would be greatly increased.

I refer, in dealing with the conditions in Western Australia, to the excellent report that was produced by this Government on the dairying industry in Western Australia in 1953. I propose to quote only the following brief paragraph from the foreword: -

The report reveals the under-developed nature of the dairy industry in Western Australia and has been prepared as a basis for consideration of measures which might be taken, both by Governments and by the farmers themselves, to improve the difficult position in which so many dairy-farmers in the State are placed.

I commend a study of that report to any one who wants to gauge the degree of difficulty which the Western Australian dairyfarmers face. It is regrettable, in some respects, that the report was not made on a completely comparative basis, with similar reports covering other States, because if that had been done the contrast between the conditions in Victoria and New South Wales, on the one hand, and Western Australia on the other, would have been very much more marked.

I wish, therefore, to offer this suggestion to the Minister: We have arrived at a state of affairs - and I have traced the progression from one form of organized marketing to another, and from one form of stabilization to another - in which all that is involved is the payment of a fixed subsidy each year. We can analyse all the processes by means of which that subsidy is arrived at if we wish; we can consider costs of production, the variable factors that affect home consumption, the equally variable factors which affect our exportable surplus, and the like, but the plain fact remains that, in the final analysis, we are paying a straight-out subsidy each year to the dairying industry. If the industry were left entirely free to determine the home price of butter in competition with margarine, and to take its chance on the export market, being cushioned against violent fluctuations merely by a fixed subsidy, there would be little difference between that and, I think, what the Government is now trying to do.

I suggest to the Minister that the payment of a fixed subsidy is bad economics because it tends to keep marginal farms in production. The man who, if things become bad, cannot afford to continue dairying, the man whose methods are inefficient and whose farm is uneconomic, is kept in production, under normal conditions, by payment of a subsidy. It is rather like the automatic cost of living adjustment of wages: It tends to increase costs. In my opinion, the payment of a development subsidy is a far better method of assisting the industry, because it has the advantage of helping to solve local problems. In this respect, I was interested to hear the honorable member for Wannon (Mr. Malcolm Fraser) suggest last night that even in Victoria this was a much sounder approach to the dairying industry. I commend the honorable member for his thoughtful analysis of the problems of the industry in that State.

This Government has excellent precedents for encouraging the development of dairy farms. I think that the sum of £16,200,000 was spent on marginal wheat farms to encourage wheat-growers to engage in other forms of agricultural production, to enlarge their farms and to remove them from the marginal category in which they were placed. The Farmers Debt Adjustment Act of the 1930’s did a wonderful job in farming areas. The government of those years spent £8.500,000 on problem farms, and a great deal of that money was completely written off. In the Northern

Territory, this Government has introduced a system of developing large holdings by guaranteeing with private banks a portion of large overdrafts advanced for developmental purposes. This is not a new suggestion; I have made it in this House before now. I believe that the Government should formulate conditions for the development of dairying properties - but not necessarily only dairying properties - which show prospects of development to an economic stage. Lack of development is the only thing that is preventing large areas in the very rich south-west of Western Australia from becoming a great dairying district.

I think that the soundest approach would be for the Government to combine the principles that have been adopted in other schemes. In the Northern Territory, for example, the private banks themselves assess the credit-worthiness and the economic prospects of an individual who seeks a developmental loan. This idea could also be applied to the south-west of Western Australia. I think, too, that the Government should subsidize interest payments, because it is the burden of interest rates which prevents many farmers from seeking advances from banks. I suggest that the Government should subsidize the interest payments on loans made by banks so that in the first year of developmental work no interest will be payable; in the second year, the interest payable will be subsidized by 2 per cent., 3 per cent, or even 4 per cent., and in future years, interest payable will be subsidized by 3 per cent., 2 per cent., or 1 per cent., on a gradually reducing scale. As production increased, the farmer himself would be able to carry from the proceeds of his developmental work the full burden of the interest and reduce the capital advance. To induce the trading banks to make such advances, the Government should guarantee the repayment of portion of the bank loan over a period of years. If the loan were repayable annually over ten or fifteen years, then for each year in which an instalment reducing the capital amount fell due, the Government should guarantee repayment of half or a quarter, or whatever percentage was decided upon, of that instalment. Then, we would have a situation in which the bank would take some risk and carry the responsibility of supervision and judgment in regard to the development work, the farmers would be involved in an obligation to do the work as efficiently as possible and to repay the loan, and the Government would make a great contribution towards the efficient development of this country. That is the primary requisite of the dairying industry in Western1Australia.

The Western Australian Government recently embarked on a developmental1 scheme which has some of the elements I- have suggested. Unfortunately, it wa? at very narrow scheme, and I do not think the Western Australian Government was completely sincere when it first promoted it. At the elections, that Government offered to introduce a £2,500,000 scheme if the Commonwealth Government would come in on a £l-for-£l basis, but said nothing about what it would do if the Commonwealth Government would not come in on a £l-for-£l basis. It did not offer even to provide the contribution it would otherwise be willing to provide. That scheme is conducted only through the Rural and Industries Bank of Western Australia and only for very limited purposes. This Government would be doing the dairying industry in general, and the dairying industry in Western Australia in particular, a very great service by making some constructive approach to the problems of development and efficient dairy-farming along the lines I have suggested. There are other methods of approach by which dairyfarming could be kept to a more economical level, such as the encouragement of even greater rural extension services. The need is tremendous throughout most of our dairying areas for constant advice to keep dairy-farmers up to date in their methods, but dairy-farmers in their own areas are not always fully appreciative of this need.

I do not want to take up the time of the House any further. There are merits in the stabilization scheme comparable with the merits of the previous five-year scheme. However, the subsidy method basically is unsound and the industry in Western Australia, which is essential to Western Australia, will not be assisted as fully as it would be if other approaches to this problem were adopted.

Mr BOWDEN:
Gippsland

.- It is quite natural for honorable members to discuss the dairying problem according to the conditions which exist in their own

States. Therefore, Victoria has been considered in this debate to be the bad boy in the dairying industry because it has created the great surplus. It was quite erroneously stated last night that no matter how great the exportable surplus was it did not diminish the overall return to the dairyman; all that it did was reduce the return per lb. That is quite correct as far as Victoria is concerned, but completely incorrect as far as Western Australia and Queensland are concerned. On the averaging system, the more that is exported on a low-price market, the more the tendency is to reduce the average price fixed for the whole of Australia. If the whole of the surplus is in one State, the other States which do not enjoy any of the returns from the surplus must necessarily receive a reduced return per lb. for their butter. That is one of the great problems being faced in the northern and western areas.

I have not risen to take up time by traversing the general history of stabilization or the various problems of the States. Stabilization has worked very satisfactorily in the past and I have no doubt that this stabilization scheme, which has found favour with dairy organizations in Australia, will be equally satisfactory. Indeed, it promises to be much more satisfactory now than it did a few months ago. At that time, with butter at 248s. per cwt. overseas, many farmers were afraid of producing themselves out of a reasonably profitable market. Last year, the record butter production was about 206,000 tons, with a prospect of a great increase for this year. That is what caused perturbation among dairy-producers. However, the latest estimate is that only 190,000 tons will be produced. That is a reduction of 16,000 tons in the amount to be sent overseas, and that will have a very great effect and give much encouragement to the people who are producing butter, because it will reduce the unguaranteed surplus by 16.000 tons. However, as the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr. McMahon) remarked this morning, the trend of butter prices on the United Kingdom market is upward and not downward. As a matter of fact, it has risen in the last week from 258s. per cwt. to 307s. per cwt. That is a very bright prospect for the dairying industry in this country.

While 1 want to take as short a time as possible, I have risen mainly to challenge some of the submissions, the promises and the nonsensical statements of the honorable member for Lalor (Mr. Pollard). In turn, he inspired the irrepressible honorable member for Macquarie (Mr. Luchetti) to make still more foolish statements. 1 shall try to prove that what 1 say is correct. If my remarks sound a little discourteous, that is necessary because the comments of those honorable gentlemen could very well be misunderstood among dairying people. First, they make the grandiloquent statement that the Labour government guaranteed all butter production “ regardless “. Of course, they did not mention the conditions at the time. They did not mention that their guarantee was less than the price obtainable on the overseas market. They did not say that the extra money brought on the overseas market was not given to the dairy-farmer, but was placed in a stabilization fund. I agree that that is not a bad idea in some senses. But, when an effort is made to put a false front on what the Labour government did compared with what this Government is doing, it is necessary to know the facts. The facts are that the Labour government’s guarantee was less than the price butter would bring on the overseas market.

There is another thing that honorable members opposite should understand. 1 agree that during the war years the subsidy was first introduced for the benefit of consumers because wages were pegged and the government at that time could not allow the price of butter to rise. That was all necessary, but in those days butter on the open market would have brought 10s. per lb.; under the stabilization scheme it was selling for 2s. per lb. Why do not honorable members opposite mention those things and show that the dairyfarmer did make a very great sacrifice in those years in the national interest? That illustrates the value of an overall guarantee. In the course of his speech the Minister for Primary Industry made the following statement: -

There is an important reason why the Commonwealth should not be committed to guarantee a return based upon costs on a tonnage unlimited. It would be contrary to sound principles of public finance to commit the Treasury to guarantee, without limit, that one industry be assured a profitable return on an unlimited volume of production, regardless of the circumstances of all other industries.

The honorable member for Lalor (Mr. Pollard), backed by his irrepressible friends, has committed the Labour party to do this very thing after they are returned to power. I ask the honorable member whether he has learned any lesson at all from the experience of the United States of America. That country guaranteed prices in respect of an unlimited production of butter and certain other commodities. The result was a volume of production that was greater than could be consumed in that country or sold outside of it. As a consequence, every cold store in the United States is crammed full of unsaleable and unwanted products, [f the Government of the United States was selfish enough to decide that it was entitled to get back some of the money that it has paid for those products, and sold them indiscriminately, every market in the world would be wrecked and there would be no stability. In spite of the experience of the United States, the honorable member for Lalor has committed Australia to the same policy if a Labour government should be returned to office.

No other proposal that could be put before the dairy industry could be as nonsensical as this one. In the United States, primary producers in every field of production to which some risk was attached, and in which the prices were not guaranteed said: “ Let us get out of this. Let us get into dairying where the government says that the sky is the limit, and we will be guaranteed returns regardless of how much we produce “. Could not that happen in Australia? Could not we create exactly the same position in this country? Our produce is selling at an unfavorable price on the United Kingdom market, yet Opposition members have made a proposal which might quadruple the production of butter. The surplus would have to be stored in Australia. We would not be able to eat it, and we would not be able to sell it overseas. Opposition members have dangled this carrot before the eyes of the dairy-farmers, hoping that they will not wake up to the dangers inherent in the scheme they propose.

Although this comment may not be considered appropriate at this time, I say that the Opposition’s proposal would create absolute chaos in the dairy industry, and it is from chaos that socialism gets its greatest impetus. Perhaps Opposition members have not been so foolish in making their statement. Perhaps they appreciate the truth of what I have said. I am inclined to think that their proposal is a means to an end. Apparently, they think that if they create chaos the farmers will accept any proposal.

The dairy industry is a profitable industry to-day, yet the honorable member for Lalor said that it was approaching a state of affairs in which it would not be able to supply the local demand. In those circumstances the whole of our production would be sold at the guaranteed price, and this would be an incentive to farmers to increase production and supply the local market. It is true that the average yearly population in-take, if the newcomers maintain the average per capita consumption, will reduce the exportable surplus by 3,000,000 lb. or 4,000,000 lb., but the greater the market that we establish in Australia, the greater will be the return to the dairy-farmer.

I speak on this measure only to correct the nonsensical statements that have been made. 1 commend the Minister for Primary Industry and the Government on what they are attempting to do. 1 am in full agreement with the provision that a blanket guarantee should not be granted over a period of five years. I hope that the position will be reviewed from year to year. We have had twelve bountiful years. It is reasonable to expect some that will not be quite so bountiful, and it may be necessary, after reviewing the position, to increase the guarantee rather than reduce it or allow it to remain stable. Therefore, 1 think it is sensible to provide that an annual review shall be made in the years to come. With those few words I leave the bill, with my blessing, in the Minister’s hands.

Mr R W HOLT:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

.- I had not intended speaking until the provocative remarks of the honorable member for Gippsland (Mr. Bowden) brought me to my feet. Honorable members are faced with the amazing fact that there is a definite cleavage of opinion among Government supporters on this matter. Perhaps that is not surprising, considering the embarrassment caused to the Government by the constructive approach of the Opposition to this measure.

Mr Turnbull:

– I have not heard it yet.

Mr R W HOLT:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

– The honorable member, has heard it but, due to his limited capabilities, he has probably not understood it. The honorable member for Gippsland said that the Opposition’s promise to pay a subsidy on full production would throw the industry into chaos. He did not say how it would throw the industry into chaos. The honorable member for Forrest (Mr. Freeth) advocated a subsidy, not only on butter and cheese only, but for the whole of the dairy industry. The honorable member for Gippsland, on behalf of the Australian Country party, also said that he preferred to sell butter at a loss of 6d. per commercial pound rather than accept the Opposition’s suggestion that a subsidy be paid on the whole of the nation’s butter production. It is an incontrovertible fact that the Australian Country party, which supports the Liberal Government, is prepared to accept a loss of 6d. on each commercial pound of butter rather than accept the established principles and practices of the Labour party over a period of years.

Mr Bowden:

– I hope the honorable member will touch on what has happened in the United States of America.

Mr R W HOLT:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

– That was the main reason that I got up to speak, but 1 will touch on that subject after I have referred to what the honorable member for Wannon (Mr. Malcolm Fraser) said. He put forward a number of suggestions which, in his opinion, would overcome the difficulties confronting the industry. The honorable member made some good suggestions but, in making them, he has not recognized the need for the payment of a subsidy to the industry. He mentioned that there should be greater diversity in our production of milk products, including whole milk, powdered milk, condensed milk, &c. It is true that in the eastern market there is a great field for the expansion of our export of milk products. The eastern market will never be properly exploited under the present system of subsidy which places the accent on the local market, so that the producer seeks to avoid exporting as far as possible.

The honorable member suggested that the size of soldier-settlement blocks could be increased so as to permit alternative production such as wool and wheat to be carried on. That is only possible within very narrow limits. Because of climatic conditions and the type of farming that is being carried on, it cannot be applied at all in some cases. For instance, we could not, within any appreciably quick period, divert production from dried fruits to citrus fruits, or something of that kind. Therefore, the remedy suggested by the honorable member would be very difficult to put into practice.

The honorable member for Gippsland also asked me to refer to what was happening in the United States of America. I had intended to do so, but apparently he has been unable to wait to hear me. I believe that we must resign ourselves completely to accepting a continuation of this practice of paying a subsidy, although the form in which that subsidy is paid may vary. In the United States approximately 1,800,000,000 dollars is being paid out of the present budget to primary industry, so that 12,000,000 acres, now under wheat, rice, cotton and dairying may be taken out of production under the soil bank scheme. The honorable member for Gippsland apparently assumes that because the United States does that, it would be wrong for us to do it. Actually, we are responsible in no small measure for the United States being in that position. We have objected to that country trading in established markets and resorting to “ unethical “ practices such as dumping her produce overseas; but this ignores the basic fallacy of the whole system of marketing primary produce. I think that very soon the Government will have to come to the assistance of primary industry in this country in order to facilitate the disposal of our produce overseas. I am not thinking of unilateral bartering agreements such as are envisaged by a number of countries at the moment, but I do foresee our reaching the stage when our exports of primary products will be made available to eastern countries on terms which will enable them to pay for those products over a long period at rates of interest competitive with those operating elsewhere. Provided the return to the local grower is paid by the Government, the question of inflation alone need concern us, and this is something that a Labour government could tackle far more effectively than could this Government.

The position, therefore, is that neither the United States nor Australia has overproduction; the real problem is underconsumption on the part of the Asians, who need our food. It is a problem of distribution, and until all governments interested in the export of primary products tackle it on the basis of international control, our primary industries will always be in their present condition. The payment of a subsidy is a piecemeal proposition, whether it is made in the form of reduced interest rates on overdrafts for developmental purposes, or in some other form. Most bankers - when they have had money to lend for these purposes - have gone out and inspected the particular farm, advising the farmer how the money might best be used and so on. That still happens. The subsidy may be paid in the form of a subsidized interest rate or a subsidized price, ft does not make very much difference, except that with subsidies on overall production there is a very firm basis on which to work.

Finally, I want to reiterate one of the means whereby this fault in our distribution can be overcome. There is between the grower and the consumer a community of interest which I do not think the members of the Australian Country party appreciate as much as they should. We saw how, before World War II., the price of butterfat began to rise, both locally and in the United Kingdom, as soon as the benefit of war contracts made itself felt through consumer demand. We have seen how the price of butter-fat has fallen as the real wage has fallen. The honorable member for Gippsland has said that the exportable surplus will be reduced this year because of seasonal changes and so on. I believe that it will not, because we have yet to feel the full impact of the increase of 2d. per lb. in the commercial price of butter-fat which was permitted in July, 1956. We saw how the increase of 4d. per lb. in 1955, despite an increase of 250,000 in our population over the next fifteen months, reduced consumption by 1 lb. a head per annum. We are now led to believe that the increase of 2d. per lb. which was allowed in July, 1956, will further reduce our local consumption by i lb. a head, so it is more likely that any reduction in our exportable surplus will be offset by a decline in local consumption of butter and an increase in the consumption of margarine, as was suggested by my friend, the honorable member for Macquarie (Mr. Luchetti), in his excellent and constructive approach to this matter last night. At least he did not refer to the dairy-farmer as a donkey by suggesting, as did the honorable member for Gippsland, that we should hold a carrot in front of his nose.

I might repeat for the edification of the honorable member for Gippsland, who has now re-entered the chamber, that just as the United States of America has had to spend 1,800,000,000 dollars, under its soil bank programme, to take 12,000,000 acres of land out of production, we shall have to take similar action until there is an increased standard of living in the countries which could consume our agricultural produce. Industrialization is taking place in India, China, to a lesser extent in Pakistan, and in the countries of our eastern neighbours. The more their standard of living can be raised, the more likely they are to take our butter, cheese, condensed milk, powdered milk and so on. Until the Australian Country party has solved this problem of distribution there will always be the necessity “to pay subsidies.

The force of the Government must be lent to the system of export in order to increase prices and the consequent return to the farmer. As we have seen, primary industry’s share of the national income has decreased annually over the last four years. We do not expect a further decrease this year. On the contrary, we confidently expect an increase, due entirely, I suggest, to the movements in the price of wool. As long as we are tied to one industry in this way we may always expect these fluctuations. Now is the time to accept the Opposition’s suggestion that a subsidy be paid on the full production of butter and cheese. The Australian Country party should realize that the Opposition’s offer of support for this policy is made in good faith. AH that we are advocating is the continuation of the payment of 6d. per lb. on commercial butter.

Mr. BUCHANAN (McMillan) [12.351. - The purpose of the bill is to enable the Government to assist in maintaining stability in the dairy industry. Its purpose is not, as the honorable member for Lalor (Mr. Pollard) might imagine, to enable the industry to exist on subsidy. There are many people both in this House and outside who seem to think that the Government should fully prop the industry. I do not want to develop that point in the limited time available to me. I merely want to say that the honorable member for Gippsland (Mr. Bowden) has given a very concise, plausible and, I think, full answer on that matter.

Last year Australia produced 1,410,000,000 gallons of milk, some 290,000,000 gallons of which was sold as fresh milk and ice cream. About 75,000,000 gallons was manufactured into condensery products. That is only 5 per cent, of the total. I believe a greater proportion should be used for condensed products. If honorable members opposite were really sincere in their ostensible desire to promote the prosperity of Australia and of the workers, they would help the Government to get on with the job properly. The honorable member for Macquarie (Mr. Luchetti) said last night that when he visited South-East Asia he found that Anglo-Swiss condensed milk had captured the markets there. The Opposition must take some of the blame for that, because it will not allow us to get the highest possible output per man in industry.

Mr Pollard:

– That is not true!

Mr BUCHANAN:
MCMILLAN, VICTORIA

– It is true! The Opposition will not help us to get the highest possible output, and thus enable us to compete in those markets, which is something we cannot do now.

About 85,000,000 gallons of milk was used in the production of cheese last year. That is equal to 6 per cent, of milk production and, unfortunately, the figure is falling. It is ridiculous that that should be so in a country which has a relatively large proportion of immigrants in its population who have been used to eating cheese. Instead of falling, our consumption of cheese should be rising; but, for reasons that I have not sufficient time to develop now, we have to import something like 750 tons of cheese annually. That is far too high a figure. If we were able to produce that additional quantity of cheese and so satisfy our local market, we would be able to take a certain quantity of butter off the market. The balance of 975,000,000 gallons of milk was used in the production of 205,000 tons of butter. That brought the income of the industry to about £100,000,000 from butter and cheese, including subsidy. The 25 per cent, of dairying production represented by fresh milk and milk used for other purposes brings in £60,000,000.

There has been too much concentration in this debate on the subjects of butter and subsidy. Many people engaged in the dairying industry are able to say that their incomes are compatible with the standards of living they wish to enjoy. I am happy to say that in my electorate there are a few factories which are getting on with the job of exploiting new ways of marketing milk. The new “ instant “ milk is going to have a very big effect on the industry. We have taken the first step in the bulk-handling of refrigerated milk, which will enable us to produce milk much more suitable for the manufacture of cheese acceptable to Australians. The refrigeration of milk also gets over the trouble of the development of lactic acid and the deterioration of milk as a result of its becoming heated while being transported and, consequently, losing capacity to produce high-quality cheese.

The new plan announced by the Minister really came as a surprise to the many people in the dairying industry. It was particularly stressed by two newspapers in Melbourne that there was to be a reduction of £1,000,000 in the subsidy. I would point out that those newspapers tried to bully the Minister; and they ought to make an apology to him, as it is now evident that he was quite understanding, and realized the problems of the industry and the difficulties facing it, when the time came to make this yearly decision on the amount of the subsidy. It turns out now that the subsidy is to be maintained at £13,500,000.

We know that one of the troubles of the industry is that the London market deteriorated to an unexpectedly low level. London knows what our production is, and how much is on the way to London, because that information is always provided. We give every advantage to London buyers, and naturally good buyers take every opportunity to cut down the prices they offer us. The London market can take 7,000 tons of butter a week at a price that would probably give us 330s. or 340s. per cwt. But if we, in conjunction with New Zealand, Denmark and other butter producers, put butter on the London market in heavy quantities, the price would probably drop to 328s. per cwt. In order to get a better price, it would probably be much better not to send so much butter there, but to divert a greater proportion to other markets.

Mr Pollard:

– Where?

Mr BUCHANAN:

– I shall come to that in a moment. That is one of the ways in which the industry must find a way out for itself, and not rely on subsidy only. There is a crying need, for instance, for reconstituted milk in South-East Asia. The Government could help in this respect under the Colombo plan. That is quite feasible. The industry would provide the products, and by taking the equivalent quantity of butter off the London market and converting it to ghee, even if we had to sell it at a price that did not look like the right price, we would probably be better off in the long run.

The Australian Dairy Produce Board must be held to be at some fault in this respect, particularly for its slowness in assessing the London market. The board has given us very good service, and because I criticize it a little now does not mean that I am querying the competence of any of its members. The board could be strengthened and broadened by making it what it really should be - a proper producer board. At present, the board has thirteen members - one representing the Commonwealth Government, one representing the employees, two representing the proprietary companies, one from the co-operative companies in each State, and three representing the producers. The number of representatives of the producers should be increased to six. We would thereby get better representation, and there would be an opportunity to infuse much-needed new blood into the board. Those six members should be elected by the industry and not, as the present three members are, selected by the Minister from a panel of names. There is no doubt that the three members who now represent the producers would be re-elected under this suggested system. Their work for the industry is outstanding, and I am sure that they would maintain their places under the new system, and that the board would be strengthened by having such new members on it.

Sitting suspended from 12.45 to 2.15 p.m.

Mr BUCHANAN:

– Before the suspension of the sitting, I had made the point that the need to invigorate the Australian Dairy Produce Board, and the need for action on the part of the industry to promote its own welfare, were two of the principal factors that we should keep in mind in the immediate future. The Minister for Primary Industry (Mr. McMahon) said that it was the intention of the board to engage in some form of sales promotion, but I do not think that I can altogether agree that sales promotion should be financed out of the funds at present held for this purpose. It should be possible for the board to make a levy on all the Australian producers. At the present time, the individual State bodies in Victoria, New South Wales and Queensland have, by levy, obtained quite a lot of money which they intend to use for sales promotion. But it is hardly fair that Victoria, although it is the greatest producer of butter, milk and other dairy products, should contribute most of the funds for advertising.

I do not think that there has ever been a more opportune time for the industry to undertake a campaign of sales promotion and merchandising, bearing in mind that the methods of merchandising dairy products have completely altered. We are now up against competition by margarine, and we must pack our butter more attractively. Self-service stores must be able to display it in attractive packing so that customers will take it in preference to margarine. It must look better packed in foil or. in some other form. It will be necessary for us to undertake an active advertising campaign with the common support of both producers and retailers, and we must impress upon the retailers the need for them to push sales of butter more actively in order to counteract the completely false claims, made in advertisements, that margarine is just as good as butter. The addition of vitamins to margarine in artificial form does not make it as good as butter, in which the vitamin content is in natural form, and which is a health-giving food that is recognized all over the world as being of very great value, particularly for young people.

Allied to this problem is the need, which I mentioned earlier, to sell more of our milk products in a form other than butter.

Ice cream is a product that comes to mind particularly. The Treasurer (Sir Arthur Fadden) could help the dairying industry very considerably by taking to heart the representations that we have made for a number of years in an effort to have the sales tax removed from ice cream. The industry estimates that the equivalent of something like 1,300 tons of butter could be sold in the form of ice cream if this relief were given. I shall give the House some idea, also, of the effect of a good sales promotion campaign. An increase of the consumption of milk by only 5 per cent, would absorb the equivalent of 3,000 tons of butter. If the consumption of cheese were increased by 1 lb. a head a year to bring it to its former level - and I do not think that that would be an impossible task if an adequate advertising campaign were undertaken - the equivalent of 2,000 tons of butter would be diverted to cheese production. The market for fresh cream has been completely ruined by high costs. For instance, this product is sold in the Australian Capital Territory at 8s. 6d. a pint - a dreadfully high price. If we could restore the consumption of fresh cream to the pre-war level, which was about three times the present figure, fresh cream sales would be increased by the equivalent of 7,000 tons of butter. We could also do as is done in England, and sell margarine in a form including 10 per cent, of butter. This would absorb the equivalent of a further 1,500 tons of butter, which we are now trying to sell on the London market. ,

When we consider subsidies, we must keep in mind the great importance of the dairying industry to the economy as a whole. We must not overlook the valuable contribution that this industry makes to our overall economic stability. If the production of butter had not been subsidized in order to keep down the price to the consumer - and that is the main purpose of the subsidy - butter would probably be selling on the home market at 6s. or 7s. per lb., and much less would be sold. As a consequence of that, fewer people would be engaged in the dairying industry, and the State governments would not be opening up so much land for the settlement of returned soldiers. I hope that this valuable form of settlement will continue, in spite of the views expressed by certain honorable mem bers, because the industry can sell a greater output, if only the authorities in charge of marketing can be livened up. I remind the House that butter and cheese exports now return to this country more than £40,000,000 a year. That is far from being an insignificant return. As a consequence, stabilization is of great importance. In this connexion, I should like to mention one matter in which I wish that the Minister had been able to see his way clear to do something. I believe that an attempt at stabilization is of little avail unless the important factors on which it depends are fixed for the whole of the period of the stabilization plan adopted - in this instance, five years. In this measure, there is no link between the subsidy and prices. It should be possible to meet the wishes of the industry, and to provide that the price shall not be increased merely in order to reduce the subsidy. That is a very important matter, and I hope that it will be carefully considered later.

The adoption of a uniform production figure will be greatly appreciated by the industry. 1 have very little time left, but I should like to make one point in relation to the owner-operator allowance. I support the view expressed by other honorable members that the dairying industry has a special claim for an increase of the allowance by £100 per annum for the purpose of calculating the cost of production. I wish to reiterate only one thing: Next year the allowance will be taken into account at £1,005 per annum. That represents the equivalent of only about £20 a week for the farmer’s labour, and it is about the same as the average wage of the workers in the factories of General Motors-Holden’s Limited. However, the farmer works seven days a week, wet or fine, for 52 weeks in the year, and his hours of work each week are twice the 40 hours of secondary industry, with no penalty rates, no overtime and no three weeks’ leave. Dairying is more exacting and burdensome than the growing of wheat and the production of dried fruits.

I should like to sum up by saying that the important factors agreed on are: There will be a Commonwealth price guarantee. The guarantee will cover home consumption, plus “20 per cent, of that quantity. The subsidy necessary to make this guarantee will be a fixed amount each year, and will be determined before the commencement of each year. There will be no hard-and-fast rule that the subsidy must be reduced each year. A fixed standard of production figure will be adopted. The level of return will be based on the cost findings of the Dairy Industry Investigation Committee. The selling price will be fixed by the Government. There is no agreement on this link between the subsidy and cost, and I submit that to achieve proper stabilization the scheme should include agreement on the point that the retail price will only be increased to cover actual increases in costs and certainly not to effect a reduction of the subsidy.

Mr DALY:
Grayndler

.- I rise to say a few words on this important measure, the Dairying Industry Bill, because quite apart from the fact that it may be of great concern to the primary producers themselves, there is a strong case to be made out for those in this country who are the consumers of butter. I represent the consumers who are, to a great extent, the customers of the dairying industry in Australia. Therefore, I intend to submit my views on various aspects of this legislation. It is significant that, in the course of his second-reading speech, the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr. McMahon) only gave grudging recognition to the fact that the stabilization of the dairying industry was instituted under the Chifley Labour Government, in which the honorable member for Lalor (Mr. Pollard) was the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture. The Minister said that the arrangement which existed under the Chifley Government had been extended and that greater benefits had been given to the dairyfarmer generally. The truth is, however, that the scheme introduced by this Government has not benefited the producer and has certainly been most detrimental to the consumer. It is on that score that the Opposition takes exception to some of the comments that Government supporters, and particularly certain members of the Australian Country party representing dairying interests, have voiced.

It was significant that the honorable member for Gippsland (Mr. Bowden) and the honorable member for McMillan (Mr. Buchanan), who represent great dairying electorates, concentrated mostly on dodging the real issue. They spoke about milk in stead of butter. Nothing can disguise the fact that they are refusing to support payment of the full cost of production price for all butter and cheese produced. The Labour party, through the honorable member for Lalor, has offered to back its last election promises by supporting a guarantee on all butter and cheese produced in Australia. This was the position during the first five years, from 1947 to 1952, under Labour’s plan. However, under the Menzies Government, the London price has remained low for a considerable period, and this scheme will result in farmers receiving less than the cost of production for some of their butter. That is borne out by the fact that the two honorable members I have mentioned as representing great dairying electorates completely dodged the issue and refused to deal with the fundamental facts of this legislation. The honorable member for Gippsland was most voluble on a number of matters, but he refused to debate in a constructive way the issues brought forward by the honorable member for Lalor in his excellent criticism in opposition to this measure.

I have with me a booklet issued by the Rural Bank of New South Wales, and in it there is an excellent article on butter prices and returns. Subsequently I intend to quote from this publication and I hope to obtain the permission of the House later to have the article incorporated in “ Hansard “. I feel that the publicity that will be given to my speech will be of benefit to many thousands of farmers, and I would like these facts to be incorporated in “ Hansard “ in order that the people of this country will know the real position.

On page 6 the article says -

The first stabilization scheme provided a guaranteed return to farmers for all butter produced in Australia. In the current scheme the quantity covered by guarantee is equivalent to 120 per cent, of local consumption.

That is an issue on which the Opposition differs with the Government. Why is the Government not covering all production instead of just a percentage of it? The scheme introduced by the Chifley Government in 1947 gave stabilization to the industry and was a major factor in bringing prosperity to producers of butter in this country. It also gave this valuable foodstuff, which is essential in every home, to the consumer at a reasonable price. That policy is being defeated by this Government Thousands of families throughout Australia, and particularly in the poorer sections of my electorate and other electorates, are doing without butter because this Government has placed it beyond the reach of the average wage-earner. How can pensioners and others afford to buy butter at 4s. 6id. per lb. out of the miserable pittance they are receiving? Under the subsidies paid by the Chifley Government of 1947 butter was sold at 2s. 2d. per lb. That guaranteed to the producer a fair return for his labour, and it gave butter to the consumer at a price he could afford to pay. This Government has only given to the dairying industry £13,500,000 in subsidy in this current year. In 1947-48, the last year of the Labour government, the subsidy was just on £5,000,000. When one takes into consideration the decreased purchasing power of money, this means that, in seven or eight years, this Government has increased the subsidy by only about £1,000,000. The effect is that to-day, because of the failure to pay an adequate subsidy to the industry, consumers cannot afford to buy butter at its present price, and the producers are losing markets because of the inability of people to buy butter.

The Government must face up to this situation. I agree that the industry provides a tremendous field of employment and that it is a valuable industry to our economy, but unless the Government is prepared to adopt the plan outlined by the honorable member for Lalor, and so ensure a fair return to the producer whilst providing this commodity at a price the public can afford, margarine and other substitutes will continue to take the place of butter on household tables. Therefore I suggest to the Government that it should review this legislation. I can understand why the two honorable members to whom I have referred dodged the issue and dealt only with milk.

The article in the Rural Bank magazine states -

The gross value of butter production has progressively increased from £36,000,000 in 1947-48 to an estimated £93,000,000 in 1956-57. But with limitations placed on the application of the current guarantee, total subsidy payments have not increased by the same proportion. Total subsidy payments have, in fact, declined during the last three seasons.

In connexion with this all-important question of subsidy, the article says -

Lower subsidies and altered market conditions have thrown the burden on local prices to maintain the guaranteed return to farmers, resulting in reduced local per capita consumption, emphasizing the significance of export market prospects.

But the fact remains that the policy of this Government is taking butter off the tables of the people of this country. Owing to inadequate subsidy payments and the decreasing purchasing power of money, pensioners, children, and others throughout Australia cannot afford this basic foodstuff. It is all very well to dodge the issue and say that it does not matter; but I believe in this commodity being available to every Australian at a reasonable price. Any government that refuses to give effect to a policy that will provide butter for the consumer at a reasonable price is not only letting down the industry, but also is letting down every citizen in this great Commonwealth. On page 7, the Rural Bank’s booklet says -

One major result of the rise in local prices has been the effect on local consumption. Despite increases in population the fall in per capital consumption has been such that total local consumption has also tended to decline. This situation has adversely affected the industry’s returns, under the terms of the current stabilization scheme, by reducing the proportion of butter being sold on the higher priced local market and, with increasing output, requiring a larger volume of export sales outside the area of the guarantee.

This is a striking condemnation by the Rural Bank of New South Wales of certain aspects of the Government’s dairying policy, and if this industry is to be given the protection which members of the Australian Country party say should be given, the Government will need to overhaul its views completely and take into consideration the submissions placed before the House by the honorable member for Lalor. Why cannot the Australian Country party and the Liberal party for once get outside the realm of politics? Why do they not face up to the task of stabilizing this industry and realize its value to this country as a national asset, instead of being party-political and rejecting the proposals from this side of the chamber simply because honorable members who make them are in opposition? The attitude of the

Government parties is adversely affecting an essential industry. Why do they not take into consideration the constructive suggestion of the honorable member for Lalor, and by so doing, improve both the conditions in the industry itself and the conditions of many consumers of butter throughout the length and breadth of this land?

Mr Luchetti:

– They look for the votes of dairy-farmers at election-time.

Mr DALY:

– The honorable member for Macquarie, who made an excellent contribution to this debate, reminds me that the Government parties get the votes of the dairy-farmers at election-time, but between elections they are unwilling to do anything for the dairy-farmers. For the life of me, I cannot understand why producers in the dairying industry, who have been so badly let down from time to time by the Australian Country party, consistently and blindly follow that party. No party in this Parliament gives them less. Yet, the members of that party are sent here, supposedly, to represent the interests of dairy-farmers. What must those farmers think of the honorable member for Gippsland, who spoke about milk and nothing else? What must they think of the honorable member for McMillan, who was obliged to speak on this question in a manner that defied the facts published in this Rural Bank document about butter prices and returns? The contents of this article should make Australian Country party members in the safest seats shudder for their future. The dairyfarmers will reject them because of their failure to give protection to the industry on this matter of butter prices.

Mr Leslie:

– What about the honorable member’s seat?

Mr DALY:

– The Australian Country party is making sure that 1 shall always keep my seat; because the best way to do that is to continue increasing butter prices. My constituents will never vote for the Liberal party or the Australian Country party so long as they are compelled to pay from their meagre incomes an exorbitant price for butter while the few wealthy supporters of the Australian Country party are benefiting at their expense. This is an excellent publication by the Rural Bank on butter prices and returns, and I ask for leave to have it incorporated in “ Hansard “. I am quite willing to exclude the graph that forms part of the article.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! It will be necessary for me to see the document before it is submitted to the House. Will the honorable member mark the portions he wishes to have incorporated in “ Hansard “?

Mr DALY:

– I want to have the whole document incorporated.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The honorable member for Grayndler asks for leave to have the whole document incorporated in “ Hansard “. Is leave granted?

Government supporters. - No.

Leave not granted.

Mr DALY:

– The dairy-producers of this country will be delighted to know that members of the Australian Country party and the Liberal party have run away from an excellent report published by the Rural Bank of New South Wales, and have refused leave to have incorporated in “ Hansard “ a document containing vital statistics and information on the dairy industry. This publication is of importance to all persons in this community, whether they be producers or consumers. It includes considerable details that time will not permit me to read now. The members of the Australian Country party and the Liberal party do not want that information published in “ Hansard “; they do not want it to be given wide circulation and they want to avoid it becoming known by dairyproducers. The honorable member who opposed my request most in this Parliament is none other than the Minister at the table, the Minister for Primary Industry, who does not want either country people or butter consumers to know the facts. He realizes that the facts of the situation are a glaring indictment of this Government’s policy. I accept the position - I have no alternative - but country people will be delighted to know that a King’s Cross farmer in the person of the Minister for Primary Industry has denied them access to statistics that should be available to them. The Treasurer should have exercised more control over his few followers on this question. I know that country people would be interested in this article and he, for one, if he believed in his party policy, should have seen that this report was incorporated in “ Hansard “, as I asked.

I pass now to the joint policy speech of the Liberal and Australian Country parties as delivered before the 1949 election. They said -

While encouraging production to the full, we shall hold ourselves ready to pay price subsidies in appropriate cases; as, for example, in respect of items affecting the cost of living of basic wage earners.

While there remains a case .or artificial price control, that is while shortages continue, we shall, instead of standing back and hoping for their failure, co-operate with the States and do all in our power to make their price control effective.

The fact I wish to bring home is that subsidies on butter, taking into consideration the value of money, have been substantially reduced and the policy that the Liberal and Australian Country parties expressed when in opposition has not been given effect since they have been in government. The increased prices for butter that have resulted from the Government parties’ failure to implement their policy have caused dissatisfaction in the community. The price of this basic commodity is high. How does any one know that the Government is not going to import butter from Formosa, or somewhere else, and wreck the dairy industry in this country? Tea is coming from Formosa, as well as petrol and oil, and how do we know that other commodities will not come from there and other Eastern countries to be sold on the Australian market at much lower prices than local products? What will be the attitude of the Treasurer (Sir Arthur Fadden) and the Australian Country party if something of that nature is sought to be done in a fashion that will affect a basic primary-producing industry? The members of the Australian Country party might as well face up to the situation. The policy that is being followed on butter is not one that gives a fair go to the average person in the community and therefore should be completely overhauled.

I believe that in Great Britain Australian butter is being sold for 2s. 8d. per lb., while the Sydney housewife pays about 4s. 8d. per lb. for it. I agree that an export market must be maintained, but it is obviously necessary to make a complete review when people in my constituency are paying for Australian butter 2s. per lb. more than those who buy it 12,000 miles away. If it is good enough for people in Great Britain and other overseas countries to buy Australian butter at prices 50 per cent, or 60 per cent, cheaper than Australian prices, it is good enough to examine the position here more closely. Our own people are entitled at least to buy butter at the same price as people overseas buy it, even if a large subsidy is necessary to make this possible.

Mr Leslie:

– What about the return to the producer?

Mr DALY:

– Labour’s policy is a fair return to the producer and a fair price for the consumer. The policy that was followed by the Chifley Labour Government involved a subsidy on butter. This gave a fair price to the producer for the first time in the history of the industry and enabled butter to be sold to the consumer at a fair price. That policy has been outlined by the honorable member for Lalor. It is obvious that it is necessary to review the policy of the present Government that allows people thousands of miles from these shores to buy butter at lower prices than the people of this country must pay for it. There is a need to encourage export markets for butter, and I believe that there must be a much wider market for Australian butter in South-East Asia. Also, there must be a wider market for condensed milk and other dairy products in those Eastern countries, but the dairying industry will never be able to defeat the European cartels that are supplying SouthEast Asia with dairy products until Australian companies control the distribution of Australian products overseas.

The eastern market ought to be explored, but first things should come first. The people who should be able to get all the butter they want at the right price are our own Australian citizens. They look to local primary industry to provide their food, and there is tremendous scope for more butter on the Australian family table. The Rural Bank document that I mentioned earlier shows that butter consumption in this country is falling and the only reason for this is that the people cannot afford to buy it. This is a consequence of the financial policy of this Government, which must subsidize butter more substantially.. Some families in my electorate cannot afford to buy more than 1 lb. of butter in a week, and many young children are possibly undernourished through the lack of this essential food. It is not available to them because the Australian Country party is pampering its few wealthy supporters instead of guarding the interests of the people generally, lt is time it was brought home to the people that the policy of the Government parties on butter, administered by a Minister who, though he is a nice fellow, knows very little about rural industry and this problem, is depriving them of a basic food. Supporters of the Liberal party can afford to buy butter at any price at all. They comprise the wealthy interests in the community. The people are entitled to butter at a reasonable price, but unless the Government’s policy is changed they will have no hope of that. Why do we not concentrate on trying to raise the standard of living of our people? One way to do it would be to make butter available at a reasonable price. I am amazed that, despite the great decrease in the purchasing power of money, subsidies have been reduced. The price of butter has never been higher, and it is still rising. It is all very well for Australian Country party members to sit back complacently and to say that everything is all right and there is no need to worry about this matter because the producers are getting a fair return, and so on. But, as I said earlier, even the producers may lose something under this scheme, because the Government refuses to accept the constructive suggestions offered by the Opposition.

I do not wish to speak at greater length on this matter. I know that members of the Australian Country party do not like to be told the truth and reminded that they have talked about everything but butter in the debate. I know that the honorable member for Gippsland (Mr. Bowden) does not like these matters being brought up. The Minister for Social Services (Mr. Roberton), who last night told the honorable member for Wilmot (Mr. Duthie) to stick to his last, should realize that very few, if any, of the Australian Country party members have any connexion with this great industry. It is well known that many Australian Country party members of this Parliament were selected by their party because they are what I call “ window- sill “ farmers. They live in palatial apartments and have a few pot plants on their window-sills, but that is the full extent of their connexion with the rural industries of this country.

When honorable members on this side make constructive suggestions on this important question of butter, dealing with the problems of the consumers, and pro-‘ duce statistics in support of their case, the Government refuses to allow those figures to be incorporated in “ Hansard “. It denies the people the benefit of the constructive ideas that come from this side of the House. It takes no notice of the remarks of honorable members such as the honorable member for Lalor, who has a long and intimate knowledge of rural industries, in connexion with both production and marketing. I ask the Government to forsake, for once, its parochial attitude, to consider these problems broadly and to adopt the proposals which have been outlined by the honorable member for Lalor and other members on this side, in order that this great industry may be given a fair go. I hope that the Government will formulate a policy that will enable the people to obtain butter at a reasonable price. I hope also that the guaranteed price which is finally decided upon will result in a fair return to the producer for his work. I hope that the Government’s policy will mean that the consumer will get this vital and basic commodity at a price commensurate with his income. Finally, I commend again to the Government the proposals of the Opposition.

Mr LUCOCK:
Lyne

.- First of all, I congratulate the honorable member for Grayndler (Mr. Daly). We heard an excellent speech from a man who knew nothing about the subject and who took a long time to tell us what he did not know. I am reminded of one of Shakespeare’s plays, “ Much Ado About Nothing “. The honorable member for Grayndler certainly exemplified the title of that play this afternoon. What strikes me is that if the dairyfarmers, of whom the honorable member spoke, had as many of a certain animal as the honorable member has words, the number of dairy cattle in Australia would be increased considerably. The speech of the honorable member for Grayndler this afternoon is another illustration of the tactics employed by the Opposition when it has no logical criticism to offer of the Government. The honorable member was put up by the Opposition to let forth a spate of words in order to confuse the issue, in the hope that the people might believe that there was something in what he said. The honorable member has done that on a number of occasions. He referred to the subsidy which is paid. I point out that it is actually a consumer’s subsidy. If that subsidy were not paid, the people in the honorable member’s electorate would be paying a higher price for their butter but the farmer would be getting the same return. A mistake is made by the people who ask why the dairy-farmer should receive this subsidy. Actually, it is a subsidy paid for the benefit of the consumer - the person about whom the honorable member for Grayndler has been speaking. The honorable member should have expressed appreciation of the action of the Government in paying the subsidy so that the people in his electorate would not have to pay as much for a pound of butter as they might otherwise have had to pay.

The honorable member showed his ignorance when he asked why we did not take action to find new markets. Evidently he is unaware that at the moment Australia is supplying the South-East Asian market with what is called ghee - very likely the honorable member would call it “ goo “. It is a tropical butter put up by the Queensland Butter Board. That is evidence that, due to the encouragement given by this Government, the industry is exploring new markets and fresh fields of activity.

For the information of the honorable member, I remind him that there was no prosperity for the farmer when he received 2s. a lb. for his butter. It would seem from the honorable member’s remarks that he would like the dairy farmers to go back to conditions of slavery. The dairy-farmers have no confidence in the Labour party, because a Labour government would not accept the finding of the majority of the members of the costs committee in 1947. Their figure was 2s. Hd., but the Labour government accepted the figure of 2s., which was the finding of the minority. I think the honorable member for Lalor (Mr. Pollard) admitted last night that that government accepted the minority report. In 1949, the Labour government refused to extend the guaranteed price found for that year beyond six months. It left the dairymen up in the air and the responsibility fell on this Government to carry on the guarantee. When the guaranteed price was 2s., the overseas price was in excess of that figure. The honorable member should remember that the difference was paid, not to the dairymen but into the stabilization fund. I remind members of the Opposition, also, that at that stage butter was rationed. 1 do not want to traverse the remarks and suggestions that have been made by Government members in speaking to this bill. 1 wish to deal with four points. First, I join with other honorable members in congratulating the Minister on his approach to this subject, on the interest he has shown in it, and on the way he has consulted with leaders of the dairying industry in an endeavour to find a solution to their problems, lt is well to note that honorable members on both sides of the House have stressed that there are problems facing the dairying industry. I feel that those problems fall under three heads: first, the problem of overseas markets; secondly, the problem of local consumption; and, thirdly, the problem of the future of the industry in Australia. We must face realities and ask whether this industry is making a contribution to our overseas trade. Figures which were quoted in the Minister’s second-reading speech show that the total investment in the industry is estimated at between £600,000,000 and £750,000,000. Exports of milk products each year are valued at approximately £40,000,000, and the average value of all milk products in each of the last three years was £143,000,000. Dairy cattle in this country are valued at not less than £125,000,000. These figures indicate the importance of the dairying industry to this country, not only in respect of the commodities it produces, but also in respect of the employment it provides, the money it turns over, and the contribution it makes to our overseas balances. As I have said, we must make up our minds that this industry is worthy of encouragement because of its importance to the economy. I think that a definite statement should be made on the question of whether we want dairy-farmers to reduce their production, or to continue to increase production and thereby assist the economy and contribute to our overseas balances.

Tariffs are used to protect secondary industry, and I believe that primary industry also is entitled to protection. I have heard it stated on a number of occasions that although the man on the land may work hard at certain periods, he really does not have such a hard job as might be supposed. The people who make that statement fail to take into consideration the uncertainty of the work of the man on the land, due to circumstances that are outside his control, such as the weather and economic conditions. A drought or a flood could completely disorganize the planning that a farmer had done over a period of years. In addition, the increasing costs in industry, which cannot be controlled by dairyfarmers, are reflected in the costs of production in the dairying industry. When the matter of a guaranteed return is being considered, I think that those factors should be taken into consideration. Surely those with even the slightest power to reason will appreciate that it is entirely impracticable to give any thought at all to the suggestion of the Opposition that there should be a guaranteed price and complete subsidy for the total production of the industry. No government could promise to do something over which it had no control, and the results of which it could not even foresee. If we analyse this matter, we shall see that such a system would be to the detriment of the industry itself. My friend and colleague, the honorable member for Gippsland (Mr. Bowden), has referred to the happenings in the United States as the result of such a policy. We in Australia have suffered because of over-production in the United States. Matters of this kind should be considered in discussing a proposal to give a definite return to the dairyfarmer and to take away the degree of uncertainty in the industry.

My fourth point, which concerns the future, is that if the population of this country continues to increase we shall need all the production of butter we can get to feed the Australian population. If, in another four or five years, some of the dairy-farmers at present engaged in the industry leave it because of the degree of uncertainty, we may have to look to New Zealand, or some other country, for butter for our people.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the Minister for Primary Industry and the Government, but I ask, nevertheless, that consideration be given to the need to provide a greater degree of certainty in the dairying industry.

Mr McMAHON:
Minister for Primary Industry · Lowe · LP

– in reply - I rise to answer two questions put to me by my friend, the honorable member for Lalor (Mr. Pollard). The first relates to the necessity for a preamble to the bounty act, and the second, to the binding force or effect of the agreement made between the Commonwealth and the dairying industry, on the one hand, as to the essentials of the stabilization scheme, and the Commonwealth and the State Premiers on the other, with regard to the ex-factory price of butter. I think it wise that I mention these two points, because doubts might be created in the minds of dairy-farmers if I did not give this explanation; but I am sure that the honorable member for Lalor raised these matters so that doubts could be resolved. He knows the constitutional position and the difficulties involved equally as well as I do.

A preamble, of course, has no effect in law. It has no binding effect and usually is intended only as a form of explanation. Therefore, the Parliamentary Draftsman on this occasion said to me, “ Sir, it would be difficult to draft a preamble that would be adequate to the present circumstances, and we therefore suggest, as it would have no binding effect, that you agree to leave it out”. As I personally felt that it was unnecessary, I agreed that it should be left out.

Secondly, as to the binding force of the agreements between the Commonwealth and the dairying industry, and between the Commonwealth Government and the State governments, we are all aware of the constitutional limitations that are involved. Therefore, on this occasion we have done the best that is possible in the circumstances. So far as stabilization is concerned, the essentials of the scheme have been agreed to between the Commonwealth and the dairying industry and are set out in an exchange of letters between myself and the chairman of the Commonwealth Dairy Industry Council. It is a fully effective agreement, and no government that had any sense of responsibility or decency would ever think of breaking it. The ex-factory price of butter has been agreed to as between the Prime Minister and the Premiers of each of the States. Again, it is unthinkable, in terms of constitutional practice, that there should be any doubt concerning the validity of that agreement. I personally think it has binding effect in terms of both constitutional practice and modern necessity. That being the best that we can do, I am prepared to leave it there. As I have said, I have mentioned these matters because I thought that the honorable member for Lalor would like some re-assurance on behalf of the producers who, after all, are the people we are trying to satisfy insofar as this bill is concerned.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In committee:

The bill.

Mr JEFF BATE:
Macarthur

.- I refer to clause 13, paragraph (b) of which provides that the Minister may approve expenditure, for certain purposes, from the Dairying Industry Stabilization Fund. The Minister for Primary Industry (Mr. McMahon), in his second-reading speech, stated that that would enable the fund to be used for the purposes of research and sales promotion, as approved by the Minister. I suggest that that provision contains great hope for the future. The debate at the second-reading stage dealt with the history of the stabilization scheme in respect of dairy products, but I think that the provision to which I have just referred indicates the possibility of using some of the available funds to increase the market at home. At the moment, the Government is spending money to promote sales of butter on overseas markets which are at the mercy of everybody in the world and which are, perhaps, the most competitive markets of the world. We are expending a considerable sum of money on research, sales promotion by means of advertising, and so on, for the purpose of increasing our market overseas. As I see it, the provision I have mentioned will mean that the efforts of the State sales promotion committees will be applied with greater effect to the promotion of the sale of dairy products in, for instance, the electorates of the honorable members for Grayndler (Mr. Daly) and Macquarie (Mr. Luchetti). It is in the local market that we should make the greatest strides.

I commend the Minister for his constructive thinking, as I also commend the Parliamentary Draftsman. The Minister is to be complimented on having included this provision, thus making possible this change in the use of the stabilization funds. Already in the industry there are people who have shown their faith in the home market and its future by investing countless millions of pounds in factories, particularly cheese factories, which produce a variety of products that are marketed in the most attractive packages, and at the most reasonable prices, for the benefit of the people about whom the honorable member for Grayndler rightly said that he was most concerned.

This industry is taking advantage of the revolutionary change which is taking place in the retailing of foodstuffs in Australia. Perhaps this is influenced by events in America. We have all seen the great changes that have taken place in the retail trades, with the food halls in the big stores and so on. The industry, with its faith, solidity and stability, is about to take advantage of this situation and is about to promote sales of butter and cheese, particularly the various types of cheeses. I am sure that people listening to this debate will realize that they are being offered Swiss cheese, French cheese, Roman cheese, Dutch cheese, Danish Blue Vein and other types. In many instances, where it is possible, they are being offered these cheeses in a plastic pack, which is a small pack of probably only a few ounces, very reasonably priced, to be used with savoury biscuits and that sort of thing. Tremendous outlets are being provided for the products of the dairy industry. That, of course, will raise the standard of living and give us a more gracious living than we have been accustomed to.

I commend the Minister for the change. To me this is the greatest hope we have seen for many years in the industry; it is something that is quite new and different. The industry, which is well led, is very satisfied with the painstaking efforts of the

Minister in thoroughly understanding, I think for the first time, the problems of this most complicated stabilization scheme. I want to say as convincingly as I can that the dairying industry should have regard to the change that is taking place. We should commend some of the people in Victoria and in my own electorate who have been able to supplement the price obtained for butter by using the surplus milk in making a casein at Nowra and in other ways.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Adermann).Order! The honorable member is getting outside the scope of the clause.

Mr JEFF BATE:

– Under paragraph (b) of the clause the proceeds of the fund may be applied “ for any other purpose approved by the Minister “. With great respect, Mr. Chairman, the money is to be used for the promotion and sale of dairy produce. I am describing the research that can be carried out and methods of sales promotion so that advantage can be taken of the market which is showing itself and of the creation of a market by developing a taste for these foods and attracting housewives to buy these new types of dairy products, particularly exciting types of cheeses. That would provide not only a better standard of living but also magnificent avenues for the disposal of dairy products.

Mr POLLARD:
Lalor

.- The honorable member for Macarthur (Mr. Jeff Bate) would convey the impression that something entirely new is proposed in regard to the application of moneys in the Australian Dairy Produce Board’s stabilization fund. He is all at sea. The fact remains that the moneys in this fund once amounted to about £4,000,000. They were the surplus moneys on the realization of the producers’ butter on the export market. That sum was surplus to an amount sufficient to give to the farmer the guaranteed price under the Chifley Government’s plan. By agreement between the primary producers’ organizations and the government of the day, it was proposed that the money should be put into a fund for a rainy day. There is nothing new about that. As a matter of fact, within recent years, as the Minister knows, a sum of £500,000 was provided to supplement the return to the producers because at that time their overall return from subsidy, export sales and local realizations was insufficient to give them anything near the guaranteed return. The last report of the Dairy Produce Export Control Board refers to the fact that the money was made available because there had been an overpayment from this fund to meet bounty that had been overdrawn.

I direct the attention of the honorable member for Macarthur to the fact that, though he makes a song and dance about money in this fund being used for the promotion of butter and cheese sales overseas, there is also provision that the fund may be applied in this manner to raise returns to proprietors of factories from the sale of butter and cheese exported from Australia. In other words, if the subsidy is insufficient to make up the difference between the guaranteed price and total overall realizations, an amount can be taken out of this fund to supplement the total available. I leave it at that. I simply wanted to eliminate any idea that the honorable member for Macarthur may convey to this committee or to anybody else that there is anything new in the proposal contained in this measure in regard to the expenditure of funds.

Motion (by Mr. McMahon) agreed to -

That the question be now put.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Third Reading

Motion (by Mr. McMahon) - by leave - proposed -

That the bill be now read a third time.

Mr DUTHIE:
Wilmot

.- Mr. Speaker, I wish to raise one point–

Motion (by Mr. McMahon) agreed to -

That the question be now put.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a third time.

page 1775

NORFOLK ISLAND ORDINANCES BILL 1957

Bill returned from the Senate without amendment.

page 1775

EXPLOSIVES BILL 1957

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 2nd May (vide page 1041), on motion by Mr. Beale -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Mr BEAZLEY:
Fremantle

.- I have received a letter from the general manager of the Fremantle Harbour Trust in relation to this bill. It seems to indicate that some dispute exists between the Commonwealth and the State authority handling explosives coming into the Fremantle Harbour. Colonel Tydeman, who is the general manager of the Fremantle Harbour Trust, is an expert on this problem. He was appointed by the allied authorities to rehabilitate the harbour at Bombay after it had been destroyed by the explosion of an ammunition ship during the war. That explosion resulted in the death of many thousands of people, the sinking of 27 ships and the complete wrecking of the Bombay harbour. It is quite clear from his letter, and from a reply which I have had from the Minister for Shipping and Transport (Senator Paltridge), that the relationship between the Commonwealth and the State in this matter is not satisfactory. Colonel Tydeman writes in the following terms: -

The Trust, under its regulations, forbids any explosives in the Inner Harbour. Explosives must be handled overside in the Outer Harbour. The Trust is consistently adamant in this matter.

There is no isolated explosives jetty at Fremantle, as in other ports.

Tankers are permitted into the Inner Harbour. They are an admitted risk. But the Trust will not add to the risk by permitting explosives also. This point has been made by the Commonwealth Government in an endeavour to persuade the Trust to use the Inner Harbour. In the case of special explosives in transit from the U.K. to the Weapons Research Establishment in S.A., the Trust has agreed that the State and Commonwealth Governments do admit the explosives into the Inner Harbour on conditions.

This is the serious point in the letter -

Attempts, however, have been made by the Commonwealth Government to pass explosives through the Inner Harbour contra to this agreement and protests have been lodged in consequence.

The Minister for Shipping and Transport, in his reply to the letter, has set out in detail the terms of the Commonwealth Government’s agreement concerning explosives, but he has not really answered the charge made by Colonel Tydeman that, contrary to the agreement, the Commonwealth has endeavoured to pass explosives through the port of Fremantle. This is not a light matter for the State of Western Australia. Colonel Tydeman went on to say -

The Trust stresses that no alongside isolated berth is available, and alongside berths available for handling general cargoes are contained in one basin, particularly vulnerable to fire or explosion hazard. The value of the Port of Fremantle to the State of W.A. - its only major equipped port - cannot be over stressed in this regard.

I do not profess to be qualified to discuss the technical aspects of what is obviously a dispute between the Commonwealth and the State, but the charge that the Commonwealth has violated the agreement is a serious one.

Under this bill, the Commonwealth takes to itself the power completely to override the State authority in the handling of explosives. If the Commonwealth has itself been setting aside its own agreement, that is not a very good augury for the way that the Commonwealth will use its authority under this legislation. This raises the basic question of the refusal of the Commonwealth to construct a harbour or a dock on the western coast of Australia to handle Commonwealth defence projects. If a State authority is to be .coerced by a Commonwealth authority into handling Commonwealth explosives in areas which the State experts regard as dangerous, and that in the one port available to the State of Western Australia which is efficiently equipped, then the Commonwealth should itself expend the money necessary to build a harbour or outer harbour or some safe docking facilities to handle the Commonwealth’s own defence work on the west coast of Western Australia. I am not criticizing the Minister or the Commonwealth Administration concerned, and I am not professing to know whether the Commonwealth or the State is right. I regard Colonel Tydeman as an able and an exceptionally responsible man, and I direct the Minister’s attention to the fact that he has made a really serious charge. I repeat it in the terms of his letter -

Attempts, however, have been made by the Commonwealth Government to pass explosives through the Inner Harbour contra to this agreement and protests have been lodged in consequence.

It is also clear that, in the past, there has been a relationship of dispute between the Commonwealth and the organization which represents all the port authorities in Australia. It would be a good thing if we could have some re-assurance from the Minister on this matter.

Mr FREETH:
Forrest

.- I do not quarrel with the honorable member for Fremantle (Mr. Beazley) on the point that he has raised in relation to this bill, but I think that he has received a wrong impression of the points at issue to some degree. I think that he has done right to direct attention to the dangerous situation that could exist at Fremantle by reason of ships that carry explosives having to berth in the inner harbour. He has done the State a service by directing attention to the lack of facilities for naval or military docking and unloading provisions in that State, but, to some degree, that is irrelevant to this bill. It is true that a dispute has developed over the agreement between the State government and the Commonwealth, but that agreement was only arrived at, in the first place, as a friendly arrangement for carrying out Commonwealth defence objectives. In other words, whilst the honorable member for Fremantle has suggested that the Commonwealth is trying to coerce the State into accepting a certain state of affairs, I think that he will agree that that is a rather strong expression to use.

The plain fact is that the Commonwealth has a responsibility for the defence of this country, and that responsibility is paramount over the responsibilities of the State. In discharging its responsibility, the Commonwealth must make and enforce such laws as it, in its judgment, thinks best. The agreement reached between the State and the Commonwealth referred to the berthing or mooring of the vessels, and some dispute has arisen over the interpretation of the word “ berthing “. The Western Australian version of the dispute is simply that the Fremantle Harbour Trust discharged its obligation under the agreement in respect of a vessel when it provided a mooring and anchorage in the outer harbour.

The Commonwealth Government was not greatly concerned with this interpretation until recently. This matter arose because of the necessity for the careful handling of very delicate explosive instruments which have been coming from England for the latest tests at the Woomera Rocket Range. This has resulted in some difficulty for the Commonwealth Government when vessels have been ordered to moor in the outer harbour and to discharge their explosive content there, and then proceed to the inner harbour to discharge the remainder of their cargo. In most cases, the explosives are comparatively light portions of the cargo, weighing only a few tons. After they have discharged the explosives, the vessels then proceed to Fremantle inner harbour to discharge the remainder of their cargo. Then they go out to the anchorage again and from alongside, reload the explosive weapons which are consigned to Adelaide or some other port. That is a rather absurd state of affairs when one considers the very delicate nature of the instruments that are involved.

The delays and the difficulties that have been caused have made it necessary for the matter to be cleared up beyond doubt if the Commonwealth Government is to pursue conscientiously its defence objectives. This legislation proposes to put the matter beyond doubt. I can sympathize with Mr. Tydeman, a man for whom I have great respect, in his anxiety that the utmost precautions should be taken for the safety of the community. I believe that, subject only to the overriding considerations of defence, the Commonwealth Government has done all that can reasonably be expected in the circumstances.

The undertaking now given to the State government and the Fremantle Habour Trust is that explosives will be shipped, wherever possible, in vessels which are not required to call at Fremantle. The undertaking has also been given that when a vessel loaded with, or about to load or discharge, Commonwealth explosives as defined in the first schedule to the explosives regulations, must call at Fremantle, as much as possible of the handling of the explosives will take place at the explosives anchorage in Gage Roads. In other words the Commonwealth will not insist on a vessel going into the inner harbour with explosives if it is possible to unload it in Gage Roads. Explosives loaded in vessels calling at Fremantle, but not to be discharged at that port, will be in the smallest possible quantity, enclosed in adequate magazines and stowed in a sealed hold. Adequate guards and patrols, as arranged between the Fremantle Harbour Trust and the Commonwealth, will be maintained at the Commonwealth’s expense.

There are various other safeguards which protect as fully as possible the interests of the people of Fremantle and of the Fremantle Harbour Trust. Of course, no one can say with 100 per cent, certainty that there will not be an unfortunate accident, but I am satisfied that the Commonwealth has done everything practicable to prevent anything of the kind occurring.

Mr. Tydeman referred in his protest to the unfortunate disaster at Bombay. He has, with some justification, very vivid memories of that disaster, but it is pointed out that under existing conditions such a situation could not occur in Fremantle. Moreover, it is not generally appreciated that the port of Fremantle regularly handles shipments of petroleum products, commercial chemicals and a great deal of other highly explosive material. These constitute a far greater hazard to the port than would any foreseeable peace-time consignment of explosives on behalf of the Commonwealth Government.

This legislation is designed to remove existing doubts and settle a ground of dispute between the Harbour Trust authorities and the Commonwealth Government. It is being done, not in a spirit of coercion, as the honorable member for Fremantle has suggested, but simply in an attempt to ensure that the defence interests of the whole Commonwealth, including Fremantle and Western Australia, shall remain paramount. I do commend the honorable member for Fremantle for drawing attention to the lack of naval facilities in Western Australia. I think that all Western Australians look forward to the day when the western half of this continent will receive a greater degree of defence attention.

Mr HAMILTON:
Canning

.- I have been very glad to hear the claims of the two honorable members who have spoken because, for ten and a half years, I have been advocating that the Commonwealth should do something about setting up a naval establishment, starting with a dock or something of the sort, on the western seaboard. Unfortunately, I have not had very much support. We now come up against one of the problems that I have envisaged for some time. It is wrong of the honorable member for Fremantle (Mr. Beasley) to say that the Commonwealth will be able to override the State authority completely. The Commonwealth, as the honorable member for Forrest (Mr. Freeth) has said, has a special responsibility in regard to armaments and explosives being transported to the Weapons Research Establishment. If the port authority refuses to co-operate, the Commonwealth may override it, but in all cases of disagreement the whole of the facts must be brought to the notice of the Minister before the GovernorGeneral issues a regulation or order.

I, too, have received a communication from Mr. Tydeman, the general manager of the Fremantle Harbour Trust. He gave an example of one ship on which some one had taken unto himself the right to do as he wished. That was a most unfortunate happening and the person responsible was dealt with quickly as soon as the matter was brought under notice. As the honorable member for Forrest has said, large quantities of explosives will not be brought in. In the case of highly technical firing devices it may be considered inadvisable to offload in the anchorage and later reload from barges after the vessel has returned from the inner harbour.

I have had some- experience of these matters in two wars and I also have vivid recollections of the great explosion in Halifax Harbour during World War I., when a ship loaded with TNT blew the whole place practically to smithereens. Explosives will not detonate without an armed firing device. My experience in the use of explosives in two wars is that they are not armed until they reach the place where they are to be used. But one cannot ignore the likelihood of human failure. No matter how often we tell people to be careful we shall still see them biting detonators in order to crimp them to fuses. If, in the process, they blow off their jaw it is not the fault of any regulation.

I have seen a man carrying a tray of gunpowder while he had a lighted cigarette in his mouth. He did not carry it very far. We have seen how carelessly some people handle petrol. They will strike a match near a petrol tank or, if they have some engine trouble along the road and do not possess a torch, they will examine the carburettor with the aid of a match. We cannot legislate to prevent people from doing that sort of thing.

I would say that the danger envisaged by the general manager of the Harbour Trust is not as great as would appear. I feel certain that explosives or weapons being taken from the United Kingdom to the research station at Woomera will be adequately safeguarded. The honorable member for Forrest mentioned that they will be carried in a magazine, be disarmed, and be placed in a sealed hold. I emphasize that if after every precaution has been taken, the port authorities refuse to cooperate with the Commonwealth in providing a berth for these ships, the whole of the facts must be brought to the notice of the Minister before action can be taken.

I feel certain that, as a result of the precautions being taken, no serious accident will occur, but this dispute does highlight the fact mentioned by the two previous speakers - that the Commonwealth should examine seriously the matter of setting up a naval establishment in Western Australia. This is an opportunity to start doing that in a very small way. No one believes that the Woomera project will be abandoned in a few short days. We know that it will be there for years, and possible friction between the two authorities could easily be overcome by the setting up of a naval establishment, however small, in the area. This is especially possible now that Cockburn Sound has been developed by the dredging of two banks which previously prevented entry to the waterway.

I support the legislation and feel bound to say that the people whom I have met in the Commonwealth explosives field are not men who would foolishly endanger property or life. If I may say so without any bitterness at all, it is usually the theorist, not the practical man, .who causes the damage. I have every faith in the Commonwealth’s handling of this matter.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time, and reported from committee without amendment or debate; report adopted.

Bill - by leave - read a third time.

page 1779

MATRIMONIAL BILL 1957

Suspension of Standing Orders.

Motion (by Mr. Beale for Mr. Harold Holt) agreed to -

That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the Order of the Day, General Business, for the Matrimonial Bill 1957 being proceeded with forthwith.

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 1st May (vide page 972), on motion by Mr. Joske -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Upon which Mr. Whitlam had moved by way of amendment -

That all words after “That” be omitted with a view to inserting the following words in place thereof: - “ the Bill be referred to a Joint Select Committee of both Houses of the Parliament because of its great importance, its far-reaching implications to all sections of the community, and the necessity for the widest possible prior consultation with child welfare and marriage guidance councils, churches, and social institutions vitally interested in the matters covered by the Bill “.

Mr DUTHIE:
Wilmot

.- I do not intend to speak on this measure from the legal point of view. I think that enough legal men have already spoken in this debate. My aim is to examine whether there is any humanity in this bill, because that is the aspect which appeals to me tremendously in a serious matter of this kind.

This is a difficult subject to discuss, but I shall not shirk my responsibility as a member of this Parliament and of the Opposition to express my opinion of the measure. The Labour party will not oppose the bill if our amendment is defeated. At the committee stage all members of the Opposition will be able to vote as their consciences or their beliefs dictate. I think that that is the correct procedure to be followed in relation to a matter of this nature. Of all the measures that have ever been brought before this Parliament, surely this bill is of a nonpolitical and non-partisan nature. Let us hope we can keep the debate on that level.

I commend the honorable member for Balaclava (Mr. Joske) who introduced the measure. I am about to express disagreement with some of his proposals, but I must commend him for the tremendous energy and concentration he brought to bear in the preparation of this measure to unify the various divorce laws of Australia.

The bill seeks to reduce the number of grounds for divorce in Australia from about 30 to 8. I do not subscribe to any idea that we should have uniformity in our laws for its own sake and irrespective of any considerations that may weigh against it. The questions that arise are: If we are to have uniformity, shall we have it on the highest common denominator among State laws, or on the lowest common denominator? Are we going to take the best features of the laws in each State and wrap them up into a federal law? In a matter of this kind we must approach the question of uniformity not for its own sake but with an eye on the ultimate benefits to the people who, tragically, will come within the ambit of the law.

For many years the divorce laws of the Commonwealth have varied from State to State. I believe that divorce law should be universal and uniform, that all causes and grounds for divorce should come under a common federal act. Why should the grounds for divorce differ from State to State? Why should divorce cases in Western Australia be dealt with under a law different from a law in Queensland? Why, when the basic fact of a situation is the same - the tragic collapse of a marriage - should the law in Queensland differ from the law in Western Australia, and the law in Tasmania differ from the law in South Australia? That existing situation is one of the crankiest aspects of Australian divorce law. There have been cases of people of having to cross a State border - an artificial boundary, a mere line on a map - in order to obtain a divorce because the divorce law in one State was less strict than that of another. So, I believe that uniformity of divorce laws is right and proper. Geographical boundaries should not be allowed to affect the basic physical fact of a broken marriage. Divorce law should be on a Federal rather than a State level. Parochialism has no place in a matter as serious as divorce.

As the honorable member for Balaclava rightly asked: Where do we go from here? Once we have established the need and the good sense of having a uniform divorce law, where do we start to achieve it? We have six different divorce laws, just as we have six differing traffic codes and six different marriage codes in operation in Australia, The honorable member for Balaclava tried, to the best of his ability, to take the best features of the laws of each of the States, bringing them into one measure and thereby reducing the number of grounds for divorce from 30 to 8.

My criticism of the bill is that humanity seems to be lacking in it. Legalism predominates throughout the second-reading speech of the honorable member for Balaclava and in the bill itself. The English Royal Commission on Divorce, which first met in 1951, and made its report in 1955, by contrast, gave more consideration to the human elements involved in the tragedy of divorce. A comparison of the two approaches shows up, in bold relief, the differences between them. The report of the royal commission is a human document. In some respects, it would have been much better, notwithstanding the Opposition’s proposed amendment, to approach the matter in a similar way in this country. The appointment of a royal commission would have enabled a great many people to submit their views on this complex matter. The English royal commission heard evidence from 67 organizations, and 48 individual witnesses, at 102 meetings, held in London and Edinburgh. That indicates that it did an enormous amount of work on the subject. A royal commission in Australia would not, perhaps, have dealt with the matter so widely, but it would certainly have enabled the problems involved to be given much more mature consideration, over a period of perhaps a year or two, so that a more considered measure might have been introduced. As it is, the honorable member for Balaclava and several other gentlemen, were primarily responsible for the preparation of this measure. The Opposition’s proposed amendment represents something half-way between the methods adopted by the honorable member for Balaclava and those of the English royal commission. A select committee representative of both the Government and the Opposition could take evidence from representatives of the churches, and of marriage guidance councils, and from other people who, all the time, deal with the problems of divorce.

I wish to emphasize several matters in particular. On the last page of a very wellprepared document produced by the

National Catholic Welfare Committee, entitled “An Analysis of the Matrimonial Bill, 1957 “, this comment appears -

The Matrimonial Bill, as presented to the House, leaves itself open to the serious criticism that it has concentrated too much on creating legal harmony out of legal chaos to the neglect of the not less important moral and social aspects of marriage.

I could not agree more with any statement than with that one. It highlights the very aspect of the problem that I have been trying to emphasize: Consideration of the moral and spiritual aspects of the question, which is basically a moral and spiritual question, is lacking in the bill, which has been drafted in the tight legal form for the benefit of the courts in interpreting the law. If we can keep married couples out of the courts, and have their problems dealt with by people who fully understand the spiritual and social significance of marriage, because they are dealing with it all the time - people such as ministers of religion, social workers trained in this field, and psychologists - many marriages would never finish in the courts anyway, and this measure would not be necessary. Perhaps the honorable member, having such a wide legal training, and having dealt with this subject from the legal stand-point over most of his lifetime, may be forgiven for failing to embody in this measure the element of humanity that I should like to have seen embodied in it.

Another aspect of the bill to which I want to refer is the grounds of divorce set out in it. They are adultery; wilful desertion, without just cause or excuse, for three years; habitual drunkenness for three years; sodomy or bestiality on the part of the husband; repeated assaults and cruel beatings during a period of one year; frequent convictions for crime, within a period of five years, with sentences of imprisonment, in the aggregate, for not less than three years, combined with habitually leaving the wife without the means of support; incurable insanity, coupled with confinement for a period of, or periods aggregating, not less than five years out of the six years immediately preceding the date of the petition; and presumption of death. Each of these eight grounds is at present available in one or more of the States, but in no State are all the eight grounds available. Lawyers in most States have called meetings to con sider the bill. It father amuses me to think that members of the legal fraternity are objecting that provision has been made for the inclusion in the bill of a ground at present not accepted in a particular State. After all, if broken marriages end up in court, many thousands of pounds will pour into the coffers of the lawyers, and there is no doubt that that is what will happen when this measure becomes law. I think that the honorable member for Balaclava has tackled the question very courageously by reducing the total of 30 grounds for divorce now available throughout the States to eight under a uniform federal code, which would override the State laws and operate in exactly the same way in all the States.

There are several other matters that I wish to mention. The bill makes no provision for judicial separation. The honorable member for Balaclava stated his reasons for omitting such provision, which at present is incorporated in the divorce laws of most of the States. He said, in his second-reading speech -

The whole notion of judicial separation springs from the past. It comes from the day when the husband had practically a patriarchal authority over the wife . . . Those days, happily, have passed. . . . Since the policy of the bill is against separation, the judicial separation, or the separation by court order, is dropped.

The Royal Commission on Divorce in England did not agree with the honorable member about judicial separation. On the contrary, it considered that provision for judicial separation was necessary. The commission stated -

  1. . this remedy should be retained in order to provide relief, where sufficient and appropriate grounds exist, for those who have religious or conscientious objections to divorce. We also consider it desirable that a remedy should be available for an injured spouse which, at the same time, keeps open the door for the possibility of subsequent reconciliation.

I criticize the bill because it does not provide for judicial separation - a procedure that has in it more good than evil. It should have been retained. Damages and costs, unfortunately, are a big feature of divorce proceedings. Clause 28 of the bill gives a husband the right to claim damages in a petition for divorce. A wife is given no similar right to claim damages from a woman with whom her husband has committed adultery. On this matter, the English royal commission recommended - . . a wife should be given the same right to claim damages from an adulteress as her husband has to claim them from an adulterer.

That would be only ordinary, common justice, and I criticize the bill because it does not provide for it. There should be no distinction between the rights afforded to husbands and to wives in the matter of damages and costs. Unfortunately, children suffer most as the result of divorce, and I feel that every care should be taken to see that they are provided for. Statistics show that children of divorced parents themselves ultimately become parties in the majority of divorce cases later on. The figures are fundamentally similar in all countries. They show that the children of divorced parents themselves make up the majority of divorced people in later years. Therefore, we must do all we can in measures of this kind to provide for the children. They are undoubtedly the real victims in every divorce case.

The law in England provides that in any proceeding before any court, where the custody or upbringing of the children is in question, the court, in deciding that question, must regard the welfare of the child as the first and paramount consideration. After a careful examination of all aspects of the problems of children in divorce proceedings, the England royal commission recommended that a divorce should not be granted until the court was satisfied about the welfare of the children. Children should be similarly catered for in this bill.

Mr Beale:

– So they are.

Mr DUTHIE:

– Not to the same extent as the royal commission recommended in England.

Another matter is maintenance. Members of this House are caught up in scores of different kinds of problems. We have to deal with humanity at every level, and if honorable members opposite or my colleagues on this side have had the same experience as I have, a lot of their work, too, has to do with broken homes and the like. I have even been asked to find a husband for a certain widow.

Mr Beale:

– How did you go?

Mr DUTHIE:

– It was a very difficult assignment and I was not successful. On the matter of maintenance, at the present time a woman may take whatever proceedings are available to her in the courts and still not receive the money she needs to provide food, shelter and clothing for her children and herself. Accordingly, her financial condition gradually deteriorates until she is so impoverished that it is necessary for her to receive State as well as Commonwealth social service benefits. Often the divorced husband has remarried and is in no financial position to support two homes. What can the divorced woman do about it? She can go to the court and ask that her husband be written to, but still there is no money. So it goes on until there comes a time when nobody is interested in her any more because so many other cases have come forward in the meantime. She becomes a lost soul in the great field of divorce and broken homes. The whole of her husband’s pay envelope goes to his second wife and her children, leaving nothing for his first wife.

I commend to the Government an item on this particular point in the booklet prepared by the National Catholic Welfare Committee. It is suggested that the courts should be given financial backing by the Government so that they will be able to pay to wives the sums that they order to be paid by way of maintenance. In this way wives and children would be protected against impoverishment. A court would then be empowered to take whatever steps might be deemed necessary to reimburse itself from the husband against whom an order has been made. A similar approach might be adopted in all maintenance proceedings, whether they are associated with a petition for divorce or not. That is an interesting suggestion which could be given consideration. Such a scheme would protect wives who have been divorced and who, with their children, find themselves in desperate circumstances.

I also emphasize to the House and to the honorable member for Balaclava (Mr. Joske) who brought this bill down, the vital importance of reconciliation provisions in any divorce legislation. The honorable member for Balaclava has mentioned this specifically in his bill, and cites three methods by which this desirable end might be achieved. Dealing with marriage guidance and reconciliation, the royal commission in England, in its report, pointed out -

Marital difficulties are much more likely to be overcome if they are tackled in the early stages.

That is true -

Successful marriage and the maintenance of the unity of family life are so important that, where husband and wife have become estranged, an attempt should be made wherever possible to bring them together again. The State has thus an interest in furthering reconciliation wherever possible. We suggest that it would be unwise to attempt to define any formal pattern of conciliation agencies, or to set up an official conciliation service. The State’s role should rather be to give every encouragement to the existing agencies, statutory and voluntary, engaged in matrimonial conciliation, as well as to other agencies which may be approved in the future. Voluntary agencies which have proved their worth should receive financial assistance from public funds. Their activities should be widely publicised and their services so developed throughout the country as to make them readily available to everyone. In extending the existing facilities, experiment and diversity of method and technique should continue to be encouraged.

I agree most profoundly with that also. I would like to pay a tribute at this stage to the marriage guidance councils throughout Australia. Many of them are headed by ministers of religion, and I think they are the right men to be at the head of such councils. I have some knowledge of the work of these councils. They are a selfsacrificing group of people, interested in bringing together the broken threads of marriage and human life. I believe that the Government should assist these councils, financially, because if we are humanitarians and Christians, reconciliation must be our first consideration - how we can unite a broken home; how can we bring the husband and wife together again. There comes a stage in many cases when there is no longer any hope of reconciliation, but in the early stages there is hope in every case. I would not be so cynical as to think that there is never any hope when a marriage starts to break asunder. If this Government could do something to assist the marriage guidance councils in their magnificent work throughout Australia there would be less need for legislation such as this. Equally, the less need there will be for lawyers to be dragged into courts to contest divorce actions. It is much better to aim at preventing divorce by gaining a reconciliation before the estrangement goes too far.

The English Royal Commission on Divorce was established as a statutory body in 1951 and brought down its report in 1955. That report contains some outstanding contributions to this problem and is the product of four years of investigation and consideration. Therefore, I urge the honorable member for Balaclava and the Government to consider the need for more direct help to be given to the organizations that are trying to bring broken homes together before couples are even likely to reach a court of law. A judge is not the best person to bring about a reconciliation between estranged people. He is looked upon by most ordinary people as a man apart from the rank and file of the community and, indeed, when he dons his wig he certainly looks like some one apart from the rest of us. He is called “Your Honour “, and those who address him use a language different from that of ordinary folk. The whole atmosphere of a court is not a happy one for the meeting of the two estranged parties and a judge.

Mr Anderson:

– Why not?

Mr DUTHIE:

– I do not think it would work.

Mr Anderson:

Mr. Speaker wears a wig and gown.

Mr DUTHIE:

Mr. Speaker is a human being underneath the wig and gown; but it might take a long time to convince an ordinary person that a judge is a good reconciliator. Parties, especially in the early stages of their meeting with a judge, would be a bit afraid to share their problems with him. He would have to appear to be, as well as be in fact, a man of the people.

Debate (on motion by Mr. Beale) adjourned.

page 1784

TARIFF PROPOSALS 1957

Customs Tariff Amendment (No. 1); Customs Tariff Amendment (No. 2); Customs Tariff Amendment (No. 3); Customs Tariff Amendment (No. 4); Customs Tariff (New Zealand Preference) Amendment (No. 1)

In Committee of Ways and Means:

Mr OSBORNE:
Minister for Air · Evans · LP

– I move- [Customs Tariff Proposals (No. 1).]

  1. That the Schedule to the Customs Tariff 1933-1956 be amended as set out in the Schedule to these Proposals, and that on and after the Twenty-third day of May, One thousand nine hundred and fiftyseven, at nine o’clock in the forenoon, reckoned according to standard time in the Australian Capital Territory, Duties of Customs be collected in pursuance of the Customs Tariff 1933-1936 as so amended.
  2. That, without prejudice to the generality of paragraph 1 of these Proposals, the Governor-General may, from time to time, by Proclamation declare that, from a time and date specified in the Proclamation, the Intermediate Tariff shall apply to such goods specified in the Proclamation as are the produce or manufacture of any British or foreign country specified in the Proclamation.
  3. That on and after the time and date specified in a Proclamation issued in accordance with the last preceding paragraph, the Intermediate Tariff shall apply to such goods specified in the Proclamation as are the produce or manufacture of a British or foreign country specified in that Proclamation.
  4. That any Proclamation issued in accordance with paragraph 2 of these Proposals may, from time to time, be revoked or varied by a further Proclamation, and upon the revocation or variation of the Proclamation, the Intermediate Tariff shall cease to apply to the goods specified in the Proclamation so revoked, or, as the case may be, the application of the Intermediate Tariff to the goods specified in the Proclamation so varied, shall be varied accordingly.
  5. That in these Proposals, unless the contrary intention appears - “ Proclamation “ mean a Proclamation by the Governor-General, or the person for the time being administering the government of the Commonwealth, acting with the advice of the Federal Executive Council, and published in the “ Commonwealth of Australia Gazett”; “ the Intermediate Tariff “ mean the rates of duty set out in the Schedule to these Proposals, in the column headed “ Intermediate Tariff “, in respect of goods in relation to which the expression is used.

[Customs Tariff Proposals (No. 2).]

  1. That the Schedule to the Customs Tariff 1933-1956 be amended as set out in the Schedule to these Proposals, and that on and after the twenty-third day of May, One thousand nine hundred and fifty-seven, at nine o’clock in the forenoon, reckoned according to standard time in the Australian Capital Territory, Duties of Customs be collected in pursuance of the Customs Tariff 1933-1956 as so amended.
  2. That, without prejudice to the generality of paragraph 1 of these Proposals, the Governor-General may, from time to time, by Proclamation declare that, from a time and date specified in the Proclamation, the Intermediate Tariff shall apply to such goods specified in the Proclamation as are the produce or manufacture of any British or foreign country specified in the Proclamation.
  3. That on and after the time and date specified in a Proclamation issued in accordance with the last preceding paragraph, the Intermediate Tariff shall apply to such goods specified in the Proclamation as are the produce or manufacture of a British or foreign country specified in that Proclamation.
  4. That any Proclamation issued in accordance with paragraph 2 of these Proposals may, from time to time, be revoked or varied by a further Proclamation, and upon the revocation or variation of the Proclamation, the Intermediate Tariff shall cease to apply to the goods specified in the Proclamation so revoked, or, as the case may be, the application of the Intermediate Tariff to the goods specified in the Proclamation so varied, shall be varied accordingly.
  5. That in these Proposals, unless the contrary intention appears - “ Proclamation “ mean a Proclamation by the Governor-General, or the person for the time being administering the government of the Commonwealth, acting with the advice of the Federal Executive Council, and published in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette; “ the Intermediate Tariff “ mean the rates of duty set out in the Schedule to these Proposals, in the column headed “ Intermediate Tariff “, in respect of goods in relation to which the expression is used.

[Gastoms Tariff Proposals (No. 3).]

  1. That the Schedule to the Customs Tariff 1933-1956 be amended as set out in the Schedule to these Proposals, and that on and after the twenty-third day of May, One thousand nine hundred and fifty-seven, at nine o’clock in the forenoon, reckoned according to standard time in the Australian Capital Territory, Duties of Customs be collected in pursuance of the Customs Tariff 1933-1956 as so amended.
  2. That, without prejudice 4.0 the generality of paragraph 1 of these Proposals, the Governor-General may, from time to time, by Proclamation declare that, from a time and date specified in the Proclamation, the Intermediate Tariff shall apply to such goods specified in the Proclamation as are the produce or manufacture of any British or foreign country specified in the Proclamation.
  3. That on and after the time and date specified in a Proclamation issued in accordance with the last preceding paragraph, the Intermediate Tariff shall apply to such goods specified in the Proclamation as are the produce or manufacture of a British or foreign country specified in that Proclamation.
  4. That any Proclamation issued in accordance with paragraph 2 of these Proposals may, from time to time, be revoked or varied by a further Proclamation, and upon the revocation or variation of the Proclamation, the Intermediate Tariff shall cease to apply to the goods specified in the Proclamation so revoked, or, as the case may be, the application of the Intermediate Tariff to the goods specified in the Proclamation so varied, shall be varied accordingly.
  5. That in these Proposals, unless the contrary intention appears - “ Proclamation “ mean a Proclamation by the Governor-General, or the person for the time being administering the government of the Commonwealth, acting with the advice of the Federal Executive Council, and published in the “ Commonwealth of Australia Gazette”; “ the Intermediate Tariff “ mean the rates of duty set out in the Schedule to these Proposals, in the column headed “ Intermediate Tariff “, in .respect of goods in relation to which the expression is used.

[Customs Tariff Proposals (No. 4).)

  1. That the Schedule to the Customs Tariff 1933-1956 be amended as set out in the Schedule to these Proposals, and that on and after the twenty-third day of May, One thousand nine hundred and fifty-seven, at nine o’clock in the forenoon, reckoned according to standard time in the Australian Capital Territory, Duties of Customs be collected in pursuance of the Customs Tariff 1933-1956 as so amended.
  2. That, without prejudice to the generality of paragraph 1 of these Proposals, the Governor-General may, from time to time, by Proclamation declare that, from a time and date specified in the Proclamation, the Intermediate Tariff shall apply to such goods specified in the Proclamation as are the produce or manufacture of any British or foreign country specified in the Proclamation.
  3. That on and after the time and date specified in a Proclamation issued in accordance with the last preceding paragraph, the Intermediate Tariff shall apply to such goods specified in the Proclamation as are the produce or manufacture of a British or foreign country specified in that Proclamation.
  4. That any Proclamation issued in accordance with paragraph 2 of these Proposals may, from time to time, be revoked or varied by a further Proclamation, and upon the revocation or variation of the Proclamation, the Intermediate Tariff shall cease to apply to the goods specified in the Proclamation so revoked, or, as the case may be, the application of the Intermediate Tariff to the goods specified in the Proclamation so varied, shall be varied accordingly.
  5. That in these Proposals, unless the contrary intention appears - “ Proclamation “ mean a Proclamation by the Governor-General, or the person for the time being administering the government of the Commonwealth, acting with the advice of the Federal Executive Council, and published in the “ Commonwealth of Australia Gazette”; “ the Intermediate Tariff “ mean the rates of duty set out in the Schedule to these Proposals, in the column headed “ Intermediate Tariff “, in respect of goods in relation to which the expression is used.

[Customs Tariff (New Zealand Preference) Proposals (No. 1).]

That the Schedule to the Customs Tariff (New Zealand Preference) 1933-1954 be amended as set out in the Schedule to these Proposals, and that on and after the twenty-third day of May, One thousand nine hundred and fifty-seven, at nine o'clock in the forenoon, reckoned according to standard time in the Australian Capital Territory, Duties of Customs be collected in pursuance of the Customs Tariff (New Zealand Preference) 1933-1954 as so amended. The Tariff Resolutions I have just presented to the committee propose to vary certain of the import duties specified in the Customs Tariff 1933-1956 and the Customs Tariff (New Zealand Preference) 1933-1954. The proposed amendments will, as is usual, take effect as from 9 o'clock to-morrow morning. The " Summary of Alterations " now being circulated to honorable members sets out in concise and convenient form the proposed rates of duty as compared with those at present in operation. Under the new trade agreement with the United Kingdom, preference margins in favour of the United Kingdom over a wide range of items in the Australian Customs Tariff may be reduced to 7$ per cent, ad valorem. This freedom applies to goods listed in Schedule " B " to the agreement and to most goods which are admissible free of duty under the British preferential tariff. The goods are mainly capital goods, raw materials and other aids to production. Customs Tariff Proposals No. 1 are designed to take advantage of our freedom to reduce preference margins to 7$ per cent, over a substantial part of the field in which we are free to do so. There are some 800 tariff items, sub-items or parts of items in Customs Tariff Proposals No. 1. All of the goods covered by the items included in these proposals, with the exception of those covered by one by-law item, are already admissible free of duty under the British preferential tariff. They are, therefore, all non-protective items. It is proposed to reduce the intermediate and general tariff duties on these items. This action was foreshadowed by my colleague, the Minister for Trade **(Mr. McEwen),** in his speech of 9th April, when he moved in this chamber the approval of the new United KingdomAustralia Trade Agreement. The existing intermediate tariff rate on the great majority of the items concerned is 12$ per cent, ad valorem, although some of the intermediate tariff rates are slightly higher and a few lower than 12* per cent. It is proposed to reduce the intermediate tariff rates on all except one of those items to 7$ per cent. The intermediate tariff rate on the latter item - which also carries a duty of 5 per cent, under the British preferential tariff - will be reduced from 17$ per cent, to 12$ per cent. The present general tariff rate on most of the items in Customs Tariff Proposals No. 1 is the same as the intermediate tariff rate, that is 12$ per cent. Where the existing intermediate and general tariff rates are the same it is proposed to reduce them, in each instance, to 7$ per cent. Where the existing general tariff rate is higher than the intermediate tariff rate it is proposed to reduce the general tariff rate but to maintain the present margin between the two rates. Customs Tariff Proposals No. 1 cover approximately one-third, by number, of all the items in the Australian Customs Tariff. Imports of these goods from all sources in 1955-56 were valued at some £160,000,000 or 20 per cent, of our total imports in that year. By far the most important single item on which it is proposed to reduce the intermediate and general tariff rates of duty from 12$ per cent, to 7$ per cent, is By-law Tariff Item 449(a)(1). It is under this item that many of our essential imports of plant, raw materials and other aids to production are granted by-law admission. The present wording of this and certain other by-law items does not enable us to take full advantage of the by-law provisions of the new United Kingdom-Australia trade agreement and it is proposed to vary the wording of the items to conform more closely to the relevant provisions of the agreement. Other proposed items in Customs Tariff Proposals No. 1 cover a wide range of capital goods, mainly machinery, as well as other important producer items. One of the main objectives of the negotiations with the United Kingdom which preceded the new agreement was to secure greater freedom to reduce preference margins in our tariff in order to reduce the cost of imports of producer goods from foreign sources. The action now proposed in respect of the goods covered by Customs Tariff Proposals No. 1 is, as honorable members will readily appreciate, a highly important initial step in the exercise of our new freedom which should result in real cost-saving to many Australian industries using imported capital goods, raw materials and other producer items. Some 30 of the items in Customs Tariff Proposals No. 1 are subject to primage duties. Separate action is being taken to remove the primage duties on these goods and their removal will operate concurrently with the tariff proposals. I now turn to Customs Tariff Proposals No. 2 which, in the main, are a reintroduction of the proposed variations set out in Customs Tariff Proposals No. 8 of 31st October, 1956. Proposed variations included for the first time in Customs Tariff Proposals No. 2 provide for increased duties on cotton denims, jeans and drills of types ordinarily, but not principally, used in the manufacture of men's and boys' coats, trousers, aprons or overalls; cotton twill sheeting for use in the manufacture of bed sheets and pillow cases; felt polishing bobs; and industrial machine driving chains with pitches from 1.65 inches to 6 inches. Reduced duties are proposed in respect of base metal buckles, clasps and slides ordinarily used for attire as well as in respect of buckles for general purposes. Reduced duties are also proposed on furnishing fabrics with more than 5 per cent. wool content. The provision under tariff item 105 (f) (3) for the concessional admission of woollen piece goods of a class or kind not manufactured in Australia has been eliminated as redundant - in recent years there have been virtually no imports under that tariff item. These tariff variations I have mentioned are based on recommendations made by the Tariff Board and I shall, at a later stage, take the opportunity to table the relevant reports. When tabling the Tariff Board reports, to which I have just referred, I shall also table six other Tariff Board reports, namely - {:#subdebate-29-2} #### Screwdrivers; Internal combustion engines; Alternating current machines; Piece goods similar to " Ingola "; Wool tops and woollen yarns, blankets and piece goods; and Alkali, chlorine and chlorine products. The first four of these reports do not call for any action by the Parliament. Such action as was necessary has already been taken on an administrative basis. With the exception of the recommendation relating to furnishing fabrics and piece goods of a class or kind not made in Australia, the Government has decided that it would be undesirable, in the overall national interest, to adopt the findings made by its advisory tariff tribunal in its report on wool tops and woollen yarns, blankets and piece goods. For the same reason the Government has decided not to adopt the recommendations in the Tariff Board's report on alkali, chlorine and chlorine products. Customs Tariff Proposals No. 3 take their rise from adoption by the Government of recommendations made by the Tariff Board in respect of automatic voltage regulators of the type used in motor vehicles, and in respect of electric motors, controls and needlelights for domestic type sewing machines. Protective duties are proposed with respect to voltage regulators as used with 6-volt or 12-volt electrical systems in motor vehicles but, for the time being, it is intended that these duties shall apply only to those regulators as are used for replacement purposes. The proposed duties on sewing machine motors and attachments represent little variation from those which apply under existing tariff provisions. The specific inclusion of sewing machine motors in the tariff has, however, necessitated a redrafting of the electric motor tariff items but where this applies there has, of course, been no change made in the existing rates of duty. The remaining Customs Tariff Proposals No. 4 provide for taximeters at protective rates of duty as recommended by the Tariff Board. The Tariff Board reports covering the proposed tariff variations in Customs Tariff Proposals Nos. 3 and 4 will also be tabled at a later stage. The only other proposal is Customs Tariff (New Zealand Preference) Proposals No. 1. This proposal is virtually a reintroduction of the alterations introduced into the Parliament on 31st October, 1956. The only variation made is that the reference to woollen piece goods covered by Tariff Item 105 (f) (3) has been deleted in view of the proposed deletion of that item in Customs Tariff Proposals No. 2. Honorable members will, I feel sure, need some time to acquaint themselves with the proposed changes set out in the various tariff proposals. For that reason I feel it would be undesirable at this stage to proceed with a general debate. However, I shall endeavour to arrange for the debate to take place as early as possible when the House reassembles later in the year. {: #subdebate-29-2-s0 .speaker-KMD} ##### Mr OSBORNE:
LP -- The honorable member knows that I do. He is aware of what I did when I was Minister for Customs and Excise. 1 brought the tariff proposals forward for discussion as soonas it was possible, and the same will happen in this case. Progress reported. {: .page-start } page 1835 {:#debate-30} ### TARIFF BOARD Reports on Items. {: #debate-30-s0 .speaker-KMD} ##### Mr OSBORNE:
LP -- I lay on the table reports of the Tariff Board on the following subjects: - >Alkali, chlorine and chlorine products. Alternating current machines. Buckles, clasps and slides. Chain and chains. > >Cotton piece goods (drills, denims, &c). > >Electric motors for domestic type sewing machines; speed controls and needlelights. > >Internal combustion engines. > >Piece goods similar to " Ingola ". > >Polishing bobs or wheels. > >Screwdrivers. > >Taximeters. > >Voltage regulators. > >Wool tops, woollen yarns, woollen piece goods, blankets and rugs. Ordered to be printed. {: .page-start } page 1835 {:#debate-31} ### QUESTION {:#subdebate-31-0} #### REFERENCE TO UNITED NATIONS REPORT {: #subdebate-31-0-s0 .speaker-JVA} ##### Mr MORGAN: -- I wish to make a personal explanation. I claim that I was misrepresented by the Deputy Prime Minister earlier to-day when he said that I misquoted a certain report. The report from which I quoted is entitled " Financing of housing and community improvement programmes ". It was issued in New York this year by the Department of Economic and Social Affairs of the United Nations. I obtained a copy from the Department of External Affairs by courtesy of the Minister for External Affairs **(Mr. Casey).** The report deals generally with the world housing situation and points out that about twothirds of the world's population is without adequate housing. I referred particularly to housing needs in Australia and I read from a chapter of the report which deals with the financing of housing in Oceania, which for the purposes of this report refers particularly to Australia and New Zealand. In a paragraph headed " Housing needs and economic development ", this passage occurs - >The shortage of about 230,000 dwellings in 1947 has been reduced by some 100,000. Annual needs until 1960 will average about 57,000 houses per year provided that the present rate of immigration remains constant. If the building rate of 80,000 dwellings attained in 1953 can be maintained The rate has been reduced to 70,000 already - the balance of the shortage should be eliminated by 1960. Because of anticipated population increases, however, the annual requirement is expected to reach 100,000 by 1975, so the need for a sustained effort in domestic building will not end with the elimination of (he present shortage. Further, there remains the problem of replacing at least 100,000 sub-standard houses. Progress to alleviate this problem has been almost negligible. I do not think I need to read any further. What I have read bears out what I put to the right honorable gentleman this morning in my question. It shows that I did not misquote the report. {: .page-start } page 1835 {:#debate-32} ### MATRIMONIAL BILL 1957 {:#subdebate-32-0} #### Second Reading Debate resumed (vide page 1783). {: #subdebate-32-0-s0 .speaker-JOI} ##### Mr BEALE:
Minister for Supply and Minister for Defence Production · Parramatta · LP -- This bill is an attempt to bring into existence a single Australiawide divorce law to replace the acts in force in the several States and Territories. It is a bill of the highest possible importance, dealing as it does with home and family life, with the welfare of children, and, therefore, with the happiness or misery of many citizens of this and coming generations. I congratulate the honorable member for Balaclava **(Mr. Joske)** on bringing the bill before the House. By doing so, he has earned the thanks of the people of Australia, whom he has already served with distinction in this House upon other matters. The bill contains some important improvements on existing State legislation. There is the obvious advantage of uniformity throughout Australia; a citizen living at Wodonga will no longer be subject to different rights and liabilities in matrimonial matters from one living at Albury, over the river, a mile or two away. The law relating to " domicile " has been widened and simplified, and this is a very good thing, even though there may be some rare cases, involving the new concept of domicile, in which decrees may not be universally recognized abroad. Complications in the law of desertion, especially on the question of intention in constructive desertion, have been removed, a step which must meet with general satisfaction. Proven incurable insanity is now to be available as a ground for dissolution of marriage in New South Wales as well as in the other States where it at present exists, and this reform is, in my opinion, overdue. The presumption of death ground is also now to apply to all States; and there are also many other improvements, some procedural, some substantive. The fact that I do not discuss all these in more detail is due, not to lack of inclination, not to their unimportance, but only to lack of time. Taken together in this bill, these various improvements make a valuable contribution to a uniform matrimonial causes code in Australia. Because of this, I shall support this bill at the second reading. At the same time, I am bound to point out, as are other honorable members who hold similar views, that there are serious weaknesses in the bill. The bill is a compromise, under which the author has felt obliged to limit the grounds for divorce very largely to those common to all States. The result is that citizens of some States will be deprived of important rights which they have enjoyed for generations. It is true we will have uniformity; but it will be uniformity at a low level. I find this unsatisfactory, and I believe that some amendments must be made, otherwise uniformity will have been purchased at too great a cost. I think I am right in assuming that the author himself would not resist many of these amendments. These are some of the matters which require reconsideration: The first is the omission of the restitution of the conjugal rights ground in New South Wales, under which a deserted party may petition the court for a decree ordering the deserting party to return forthwith, failure to return entitling the petitioner to proceed straight away for a dissolution of the marriage on the ground of non-compliance with the court's order. {: .speaker-2V4} ##### Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP -- What does the Minister mean by " straight away "? {: .speaker-JOI} ##### Mr BEALE: -- Within 21 days after service of the order. It is well known that, in many cases, this ground is used for the purpose of getting divorce by arrangement or to avoid distasteful publicity, such cases sometimes involving perjury because the petitioner is obliged to swear on oath that he or she sincerely wants the respondent to return. This, I agree, is a bad state of affairs, and brings the law into contempt. But all restitution suits are not of this character, and even some of those which start out in this way do end in reconciliation after the service of the initial letter or the judge's order to return. The late **Mr. Justice** Bonney, whom I knew very well, went into this matter with some care, and reached the firm conclusion that this procedure was a valuable instrument of reconciliation. **Mr. Justice** Toose, who had a lifetime of experience in the Divorce Court, as a clerk in divorce, a practising barrister, and judge in divorce, has just told me that he also believes that a substantial percentage of the suits so commenced end in reconciliation. Official figures, which I obtained from the New South Wales Divorce Office recently, do seem, to bear this out. In 1956, there were 675 petitions for restitution and only 405 decrees for divorce based on noncompliance, most of the remaining 270, or 40 per cent., presumably having been reconciled. The inference is that a very substantial number of these cases have become reconciled. If reconciliation be one of the objects of this bill, as the author says it is, then we are not entitled in the sacred name of uniformity to take this procedure away from the 3,500,000 citizens of New South Wales, where it has been in force for 63 years, where 38 per cent, of Australians live, and where 50 per cent, of all divorce petitions are filed, as compared with 21 per cent, in Victoria. I do not know! That may or may not indicate a higher level of respectability in Victoria. To be sure, under this bill, restitution proceedings can still be taken, but failure to comply with the restitution order is merely the beginning of desertion, which must run for three years thereafter before a petitioner is entitled to further relief. In consequence, there is no sense of urgency arising from the threat of further proceedings, and, therefore, very little to make a respondent think again and return home. This being so, a petitioner would rarely bother to spend time and money in taking restitution proceedings at all. This matter was considered by the Australian Law Council a few years ago, and it recommended the retention of the restitution ground with the modification that the right to petition for dissolution should not arise for twelve months. This would certainly, I believe, eliminate nearly all collusion cases, while retaining most of the benefits of the New South Wales procedure. I recommend this compromise to the House, and I shall raise the matter again in committee. There are also other matters. As a result of a fairly long experience, in earlier days, of matrimonial causes, I have come to believe that once a marriage has gravely broken down, so that there is no reasonable likelihood of reconciliation, then the right of divorce should not be unduly difficult or too long delayed. Others, I know, hold a contrary view. I respect their view, but do not share it. To me, there is nothing more demoralizing and more corroding to character and personality than the frustration and misery which arises where marital partners are tied together in a broken marriage. Approaching the matter in this way, I regret to find that cruelty is omitted as a ground of dissolution in this bill. Habitual cruelty for one year is a ground in South Australia, and also in Papua and New Guinea, and simple cruelty is a ground in England. Cruelty often arises, of course, in suits for constructive desertion where one party is driven out of the home by the intolerable conduct of the other. But this is not enough. The bill does give relief in cases of repeated assaults and cruel beatings for one year, and also habitual drunkenness plus habitual cruelty for three years; but I would submit that these are surely barbarous standards of conduct which wives, in particular, ought not to be expected to have to tolerate. In my view, they should be omitted, as has been done in England, and a simple ground of cruelty be substituted instead. Some speakers have also expressed themselves in favour of the Western Australian ground for dissolution under which a marriage may be dissolved where, irrespective of technical desertion, there has been five years of separation, and there is no reasonable likelihood of reconciliation. I have no professional experience of this ground, but it should be further examined by this House and considered as a humane recognition of the fact .that marriages often irrevocably break down for reasons of conduct or incompatibility which create profound unhappiness, but do not amount to a matrimonial offence. I am also troubled to find that the bill provides for the making of a decree absolute three months after the ;decree nisi without any discretionary power in the judge to shorten the period in special circumstances. There are .often important compassionate reasons, such as those involving the bastardization of children, which make it highly desirable that the court should have this discretion, as it has at present in most places. I believe that that should be in the bill, but unfortunately it is not there at present. Although in some speeches stress has been laid on the reconciliation aspects of the bill, there are weaknesses here. Clause 39 gives the judge power to interview the parties and to adjourn the hearing so that reconciliation may be attempted - not by him, but by some third party - but the provision in clause 40, whereby the same judge may go on with the hearing after interviewing the parties is, in my opinion, a dubious matter and not likely to inspire confidence in the parties or to lead to frankness on their part. At the same time, oddly enough, and as I have already indicated, it is proposed to leave out the New South Wales restitution procedure which has operated to bring about reconciliation in some cases. In my opinion, further attention should be paid to the practicability of incorporating in the bill better machinery for reconciliation and for the preservation of marriages which are in danger of breaking down. Now is not the time to elaborate this in detail. There are also other matters upon which criticism could be offered, but they are technical and this is a second-reading speech. However, one major matter does remain, involving constitutional and administrative considerations of great importance. Jurisdiction in matrimonial causes is to be exercised under this bill by a federal divorce court or State Supreme Court invested with federal jurisdiction. Assuming that the Government takes the necessary policy decision to set up federal courts, it will be a long time, possibly years, before this can be done. Many judges will have to be appointed or taken over, registries set up, civil servants transferred, rules made, and so on. I doubt very much whether the time indicated in the bill is by any means long enough for this purpose. Under the Constitution, the judicial power of the Commonwealth can be exercised only by a court, in the strict sense. Therefore, under a federal act, courts, and courts only, will be able to exercise the many judicial functions which have to be performed in connexion with divorce matters in addition to the formal hearing of petitions. At present, in New South Wales --and I do not single out New South Wales for any other reason than that it is the State with which 1 am most familiar - about 2,000 applications come before the Registrar in Divorce each year. It will not be possible for a registrar under the federal court system to hear and determine these applications - in other words, to exercise a judicial function - because to hear and determine what are called pre-existing rights involves the exercise of a judicial function which, under the Constitution, can be exercised only by federal judges appointed for life, or by judges of State courts invested with federal jurisdiction. {: .speaker-2V4} ##### Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP -- Could not a federal conciliation commissioner be appointed? {: .speaker-JOI} ##### Mr BEALE: -- No, not under this bill, to exercise judicial functions. The awkward question thus arises as to how and by whom these minor but multifarious judicial functions are to be exercised. The law does not require that State judges should be appointed for life - in the words of some of the cases, we take State courts as we find them - but they must be courts in the proper sense. Registrars in New South Wales are not part of the divorce court as such. At present, a registrar can exercise these judicial functions, but only because he is doing so under State legislation which empowers the judges to delegate to him. Federal law cannot give him that sort of delegation. Mri Whitlam. - Why not appointments for life? {: .speaker-JOI} ##### Mr BEALE: -- They would be delighted, but that may not be the real answer. We cannot appoint them for life. The State government would have to appoint them for life; we cannot do it. Indeed, I correct myself. We could, if we took over the whole field, appoint whoever we liked for life and make them federal judges; but that is not quite the remedy. The author of this bill has recognized this problem and sought to deal with it by a proposal that registrars may hear such applications and then report to the judge, the procedure of the court upon receiving the report being left to be prescribed by rules made under the act. I am not sure that this proposal, which was abandoned in New South Wales about 30 years ago, be it remembered, is workable in a State where a great many cases of this character are heard each year. There would certainly be much congestion as a result. I can also envisage circumstances in which questions of constitutionality would arise, leading to challenge in the courts and consequent uncertainty and disruption, if successful. Say, for instance, the registrar went too far and heard and determined, though he purported only to report, or a judge constituted himself merely as a rubber stamp and did not in fact exercise a true judicial function, we could have, and I believe would have, appeals and disruptions if this system were not carefully devised. I want to say in answer to the honorable member for Werriwa **(Mr. Whitlam)** that, if the States saw fit to make registrars part of the divorce court, then this difficulty could be avoided, but that is not proposed in this bill and, indeed, cannot be done by this Parliament; it would have to be done by the State Parliament. This matter should be closely looked at and all its implications carefully worked out before the device proposed in this bill is accepted as adequate to overcome the constitutional limitations from which we suffer. I raise these questions not to prove that such provisions are necessarily invalid, but to indicate the need for great care. All may be found to be well, but it may not be well. There is a lesson to be learned from the history of the Bankruptcy Act in relation to this matter. The Bankruptcy Act was first drafted by **Sir Lyttleton** Groom in 1907. It was introduced in 1914, but not proceeded with. In the meantime, there was a long and careful examination by Federal and State law officers, and also by many public bodies and organizations. It was finally passed by this Parliament in 1924. Four years elapsed before it was proclaimed and went into effect, the Legislature and the Executive at that time recognizing that a great deal of work had to be done before it could be made workable. Even so, it has had many amendments, some of them very substantial; I can think of ten or so. As late as 1954, only three years ago, Davidson's case, on appeal from Queensland, invalidated the whole of the Registrar's purported exercise of judicial jurisdiction - the sort of thing I have been talking about in relation to the work of registrars in divorce. Davidson's case invalidated the whole of the Registrar's purported exercise of judicial jurisdiction, thereby nullifying about 10,000 debtors' petitions. We have fixed that up by validating legislation - or have we? We will find out, perhaps, sooner or later. There is also at present another case under the Bankruptcy Act in which judgment has been reserved. If the appeal is successful, it could limit still further the Commonwealth's ability to use State courts in the exercise of delegated federal jurisdiction. Upsets of this sort must not happen with this bill which is, in its way, far more important than bankruptcy legislation because it affects the welfare and happiness of the home and family life and, therefore, the moral fibre of the nation. For all the above reasons, while indicating my general support for this bill, I urge and advocate that it be not passed into law until it has had the most searching scrutiny. I reject the suggestion that a parliamentary select committee should do this. We are not making new law; we are codifying law which exists in one form or another in the various States. Therefore, I see no need for a general inquiry which can only inflame controversy and promote party differences, and would probably result in the bill never becoming law at all. In my view, those who should examine the bill are the law officers of the Commonwealth, the law officers of the States and the Australian Law Council which, indeed, has already drafted a bill on more liberal lines than the one we have before us at present. Among other aspects which should be looked at is whether it may not, in the long run, be better to have a mixed Federal and State jurisdiction in matrimonial causes by which it would be possible to avoid several problems, including that of delegated judicial functions. I believe that such a scheme would be constitutionally possible, but, of course, this is not the time to discuss the problems of law involved, which are not easy. All this may mean that in the end the Government may have to take over responsibility for the bill. I do not know. But what I do know is that if this searching scrutiny is not conducted between now and the time the bill comes into committee, and an attempt is made to pass it in its present form, it will meet resistance from many members, including myself. I say this because divorce and matrimonial laws are notoriously difficult to amend. Unless Parliament is compelled to act by a court decision invalidating important parts of the legislation, there will be very strong reluctance to touch this subject again. In those circumstances I, for one, am not prepared to impose on our citizens, and on Australian wives in particular, a virtually unalterable matrimonial law which, as now proposed, would be less just and beneficial than laws that most of them now enjoy. On the other hand, with care, wisdom and tolerance, we can produce in this Parliament a bill giving greater happiness to our fellow citizens, which will stand as a memorial not only to the honorable member for Balaclava, but to all of us in this place. {: #subdebate-32-0-s1 .speaker-KMD} ##### Mr OSBORNE:
Minister for Air · Evans · LP -- In this matter I speak as an individual member of the Parliament. I express my own views, and not necessarily those of my colleagues in the Government, although I hope that the views that I express will receive the support at least of some of them. The law of divorce affects few people in the community directly. Only a small percentage of the population ever has recourse to it, but it raises the interest and emotions of almost everybody. It involves questions which cut across party lines. Governments are ordinarily quite properly concerned with wide issues which affect the whole community, such as economic matters, questions of general administration, and matters on which there is generally a division along party lines within the community. The questions of status which are raised by matrimonial law cut across party lines. Therefore, they are exactly the sort of questions which are best dealt with by a private member's bill. To that extent, 1 think that the criticism of **Mr. Justice** Nield, in New South Wales, that this bill should have been brought in by the Government is mistaken. The very fact that the learned judge himself adopted the very unusual course of writing to the newspapers instead of expressing his views from his bench, shows that this is an unusual question. As 1 have suggested, the unusual nature of the proceedings makes it very appropriate that the matter should be dealt with in a private member's bill. It is not surprising that laws affecting family life, the domestic scene, and the institution of marriage should arouse such widespread interest. It is understandable because it is within the marriage tie, within the family, that most men and women have their deepest aspirations, and find the most abiding happiness and satisfaction. In spite of all that one hears about the incidence of divorce in these days, marriage is a strong and well-founded institution in the Australian community. I have taken the trouble to compare the number of divorces granted with the number of marriages that have taken place in Australia in recent years. I found that from 1920 to the beginning of the war there was a fairly steady increase in the incidence of divorce, which reached its peak in the years 1945 and 1947. That fact has a clear relationship to disturbances in the community caused by the war. But since 1947, the divorce rate has settled down to a remarkable uniformity of pattern. The ratio of divorces to marriages in each year - that is, the comparison of the number of divorces which occur in any one year with the number of marriages in the same year - was about one to eleven in 1949, one to ten in 1950, one to eleven again in 1951, one to ten in 1952, one to nine in 1953, and one to eleven in 1954 and in 1955. Therefore, there is still an overwhelmingly strong chance that a marriage entered into by young people with sincerity will continue throughout their lives. I should like to state my attitude to the broad question of the law of divorce, the reform of that law, and the responsibility of this Parliament in relation to it. Australia is a Christian community, and whether the individual is or is not a worshipping member of the communion or congregation of any church, his or her basic attitudes to this question of marriage, the matrimonial law and the laws concerning domestic life, have been formed and conditioned by an inheritance of Christian ethics and morality which is centuries old. Whether the rules of conduct are strictly observed or not, nevertheless those rules in the Australian community have their origin in the Christian morality. For the vast and overwhelming majority of Australian men and women, marriage is a sacrament, which creates a relationship entered into with the firm intention that it should be binding throughout the joint lives of the parties. However, notwithstanding these facts, for more than a century the law has recognized that some marriages do fail. It recognizes that in certain circumstances an aggrieved party is entitled to the legal right to have the marriage dissolved. I believe, myself, that it is not in the public interest that it should be easy to dissolve a marriage, and I hope that this Parliament will never make it so. The churches have their own rules for their own members. Questions of the remarriage of divorced persons within the church are questions for each church, and I think that the spiritual authority of the churches over their own members is clearly recognized by all members of this Parliament. But marriage also has civil implications within the law. There is an obligation on parliaments to see that the secular law is just, fair and uniform. In this secondreading debate I do not want to go through the provisions of the bill in detail. That can bc done more properly in committee. I think that the proposal to deal with the bill only to the second-reading stage at present, leaving the committee stage to wait until the next session, is a very wise one. It will allow members time to discuss the provisions of the bill, and it will allow members and the public time to consider its implications at leisure during the weeks of recess ahead of us. The honorable member for Werriwa **(Mr. Whitlam)** has moved an amendment to the bill which seeks to have the whole matter referred to a select committee. I believe that such a course would be mistaken. If that were done it would raise issues as to the enlargement of the grounds of divorce, and the basic issue of uniformity of the law would be lost sight of. If this were to occur, I doubt whether the bill would ever reach the statute-book. Behind the Opposition's intention there appears to be a desire for a general investigation of matrimonial law in Australia, some detailed consideration of the grounds of divorce, and whether there is need for widespread alterations of the law. It would be a mistake to embark on such an investigation at this stage. There are two separate questions for consideration. One is, " Is there a need for a uniform law of divorce in Australia? " The other is, " Is there a need for a widespread change in that law? " If the two questions become involved with each other I do not believe that this Parliament will amend the law at all. I think the Parliament should deal with the first question first. That is the question as to whether or not there is a need for a uniform law of divorce throughout Australia. The general discussion on this bill seems to raise three main questions. The first is: Is there in fact a need for a federal law of divorce? I believe, with some conviction, that there is. Divorce is not just a matter of administration. If it were, those of us who believe in the maintenance of a federal system might well say that divorce law should be left to the States, as it is now. But divorce is a matter which profoundly affects the status of individuals. I think that the time is long past when we should be content to have one status for one lot of Australians and another for others. We should have one status throughout Australia, just as there is a uniform nationality and citizenship for all Australians. There is a great need for a single domicile and a single procedure in matters of divorce. At the present time there are six different domiciles. {: .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr Whitlam: -- There are also the territorial domiciles. {: .speaker-KMD} ##### Mr OSBORNE: -- There are at least six, and the law on divorce varies slightly in every case. Very awkward and difficult questions of domicile and procedure arise whenever one of the parties to a marriage has crossed the boundaries of a State, whenever one spouse is found in one State and the other in another. There should be a single Australian domicile in matrimonial matters. To the unfortunate individual who has recourse to the divorce courts, talk of different domiciles in different States, if he is not a lawyer, often appears to be so much legal mumbojumbo, and I can very well understand such a feeling. Having decided that there is a need for a single uniform divorce law in Australia, the next broad question which the bill poses, to my mind, is whether there is also a need for that law to be exclusive and to supersede the State laws. Alternatively, should it be concurrent with State jurisdiction? I answer unhesitatingly that the federal law should be exclusive for the reason that if we are to avoid the very difficulties that I have described - different domiciles and differing grounds of divorce - the law must be both uniform and exclusive. If it is not we shall still be plagued by these questions of State domicile with the addition of a federal domicile, and even increased procedural difficulties. The third question that the bill poses is whether the grounds of divorce set out are generally satisfactory. That is, of course, the most difficult question of the three. I join my colleague, the Minister for Supply **(Mr. Beale)** in congratulating the honorable member for Balaclava **(Mr. Joske)** upon his persistent and able work in bringing this matter before the Parliament. He has quite clearly approached this problem on the basis of finding the highest common factor, or the lowest common denominator - my mathematics are not sufficient to tell me which is the correct term - of the main grounds of divorce applying throughout the States. That is, 1 agree, the correct approach to the problem. I have already expressed my own belief that the grounds of divorce in Australian should not be lightly widened, and if the honorable member for Balaclava, in producing this bill, had altered the existing grounds to any considerable degree, I believe he would have provoked a situation in which the bill would not have had any prospect of receiving the approval of this Parliament. The grounds of divorce set out in this bill are eight - adultery; desertion for three years and upwards; habitual drunkenness, coupled, in the case of a husband, with lack of support or cruelty and, in the case of a wife, with neglect of domestic duties; unnatural offences by a husband; repeated assaults and cruelty for a year; frequent convictions and imprisonment over five years; insanity coupled with a proven unlikelihood of recovery, together with confinement in a mental institution for at least five of the preceding six years; and presumption of death arising from an absence of over seven years during which the absent spouse has not been heard of. Those are the grounds most closely approaching common ground among the State laws. I have said that in the public interest there should not be any great widening of the grounds of divorce in Australia, but within that general principle I believe there is room for consideration, at the committee stage, of minor amendments. I say minor amendments advisedly, and I have in mind such matters as bringing into line the rights of men and women. I can see no reason at all why, in these days, a husband should be able to divorce his wife for drunkenness and failure to perform her domestic duties while she, on the other hand, must establish not only that her husband was habitually drunk, but that he either treated her with great and persistent cruelty or consistently failed, over a long period, to support her. I would have imagined that drunkenness, plus proven failure to accept domestic responsibilities either by husband or wife would be a sufficient single ground. Similarly, I see no reason why an aggrieved wife should not be able to recover damages from the woman who has detached her husband's affections from her in the same way as a husband can recover damages from a corespondent. But I point out these are minor amendments of the grounds, and that I would prefer to see the committee restrict its attention to a consideration of minor amendments of that sort. To find a common ground among the State laws has necessarily involved some levelling up, and some levelling down, of the grounds in different States. This has inevitably engendered complaints in some of the States that their grounds of divorce will be restricted. I can find only two such cases that are of any considerable consequence. First, under Western Australian law, the present ground of separation for five years would go. However, under this bill the provisions for relief on the ground of desertion are wide, and a state of willing separation can be ended by the bona fide request of either party to resume married life together. I do not believe that the deprivation of the citizens of Western Australia would be very great. Certainly, it would be more than outweighed by the advantages of a uniform law regarding domicile and procedure. The other notable instance of restriction of an existing ground of divorce would be the abandonment of the present provision of the law in New South Wales whereby non-compliance for 21 days with an order for the restitution of conjugal rights is equivalent to desertion for three years and upwards. It is not very often that I find myself in disagreement, in a matter of this sort, with my friend, the Minister for Supply, but in this instance I disagree with him profoundly. All my own legal experience has convinced me that this polite method of obtaining a divorce in New South Wales by non-compliance with a decree for restitution is, in 99 per cent, of cases, a collusive method. It involves collusion between the parties and perjury by one. One of them goes to the court and swears that he or she genuinely desires the other to return. In 99 per cent, of cases such a statement is quite untrue. I am aware of the figures produced by a learned judge in divorce in New South Wales, which appeared to establish that in some 10 per cent, of the cases in which a petition for restitution of conjugal rights was taken out, reconciliation followed. But how do we know how many of these cases would never have begun at all if this polite but dishonest method of obtaining a divorce did not exist. {: .speaker-JXI} ##### Mr Freeth: -- And in what percentage of cases taken out on other grounds were reconciliations effected. {: .speaker-KMD} ##### Mr OSBORNE: -- Exactly! For my part, I think the citizens of New South Wales would be well off without this ground for divorce, of desertion arising from noncompliance with a restitution order. Under the bill before the House, an order for restitution can still be obtained and, if it is not complied with, desertion begins to run; but it must run for three years before matrimonial relief is given. My whole approach to divorce reform is that divorce should not be made easier or quicker. There has been some criticism of the bill by lawyers. Perhaps, the most notable is that to which I referred - the letter of **Mr. Justice** Nield in a Sydney newspaper. I have not time to reply in detail to his criticisms, but I do not believe that they outweigh, in any respect, the great advantages that would accrue from a uniform divorce law. There have been other criticisms by lawyers, which have resulted from a meticulous examination of the grounds set out in the bill, and of procedural matters and so on. The best answer I have found to these criticisms lies in the views of the Incorporated Law Institute of New South Wales, the statutory body representing the solicitors of that State. By order of the council of that body the secretary has written to all members of this Parliament, who are lawyers, in the following terms: - >It is thought that you may care to know the views of the Institute on this Bill. > >The Council is in complete agreement that uniformity of the laws relating to divorce and the custody of infants throughout the Commonwealth is desirable, and, in fact, of great importance. > >The Council of the Institute also considers that the Bill accords substantially with the opinions of its members. > >As might be expected, practising solicitors in this State are not in complete agreement on specific or particular aspects but these do not outweigh the great advantages which will be achieved by the passage of this legislation. > >It is appreciated that amendments will be found to be necessary after full debate on a non-party basis and after experience in the operation of the provisions of the Act. > >We do not consider that the objections which have been raised to particular aspects of the legislation justify indefinite or lengthy postponement of the measure so long as adequate consideration is given to it by the House. That is the formally expressed opinion of the statutory body which represents the solicitors of New South Wales. {: .speaker-JOI} ##### Mr Beale: -- It warns about the necessity for amendments, does it not? {: .speaker-KMD} ##### Mr OSBORNE: -- Yes, but I do not think my friends on the council of the Incorporated Law Institute of New South Wales would find themselves at odds with me in my contention that only minor amendments are required, and not wholesale variation of the laws of divorce; because if the House attempts such wholesale variations I do not believe we will ever get uniform divorce law at all. One final point that I ask the House to bear in mind is that the bill is of special importance to women, and of great interest to women's organizations. No one can say, when a marriage fails, on which party will fall most heavily the inevitable burden of unhappiness and deprivation. All one can say with reasonable certainty is that as a general rule the wife stands to lose materially much more than the husband. This is especially true when the wife is no longer young. I remind the House that women's organizations have for years been asking for uniform divorce law and, for my part, I hope sincerely that their pleas will be answered by this bill. I support the general intentions of the measure. I concede, as I think the progenitor of the bill himself concedes, that there is a case for the consideration of minor amendments at the committee stage. 1 am opposed, for the reasons I have stated, to the suggestion that the bill be referred to a select committee. I am also opposed to any suggestion that the bill should be made the occasion for widespread alterations of the grounds for divorce. I support the second reading, and I congratulate its mover. {: #subdebate-32-0-s2 .speaker-KCS} ##### Mr DRUMMOND:
New England -- I do not propose to speak at length on this measure. Having regard to the fact that differing opinions have been expressed by very eminent legal gentlemen on both sides of the House, who are in complete disagreement with each other on many points, I feel that as a layman I should walk warily indeed before I ventured into the fields of legal discussion. Since my association as a member of this House with the honorable member for Balaclava **(Mr. Joske),** who introduced the measure, that honorable member has shown a great degree of devotion to the purpose of trying to give to Australia uniform marriage and divorce laws. He is deserving of the highest commendation we can give him for having produced this measure. I wish to say right at the outset that I look with some curiosity at the fact that members on both sides of the House and members of parties that have disappeared into the limbo have, over the past 57 years, argued that there should be amendments of the Constitution, to enable the Commonwealth to have more power; yet for some reason which to me, as a layman, is hard to understand, this most desirable piece of legislation that we are now discussing has been delayed. Were it not for the devotion and the deep knowledge and courage of the honorable member for Balaclava, I doubt whether it would be before the House now. For that reason, I wish to say that I would oppose any proposal to delay further the passage of the measure by any of the devices that are usually - and sometimes usefully - found to be effective in side-tracking a valuable piece of legislation. I feel that the proper way to deal with this bill is to let it go through the second-reading stage unimpeded, and then members can argue their cases either for enlargement, restriction or modification of the existing law at the committee stage. I, as a layman, would not care to cross swords with the legal profession, the members of which, judging from the press comments on this measure and from certain remarks made in the House during this debate, seem to be quite able to duel with one another in a way that leaves a layman rather breathless. Yet, despite differences of opinion on the measure, I feel that the greatest tribute to it is that, relatively speaking, there is no serious objection to its drafting. I wonder why, for nearly 57 years, Australia has tamely accepted a position of having six different laws instead of a uniform law in relation to what is one of the most important fields of social life. I can recall that in the early days of my State political experience many years ago there was a most extraordinary case of a State barrier of a legal character being erected between New South Wales and Victoria to prevent the spread of an influenza epidemic into New South Wales from Victoria. A young couple resident in New South Wales, near the Murray River, customarily attended a church in Victoria, and had arranged to be married in it. However, the legal barrier to passage across the border between the States was suddenly raised, and they were unable legally to enter Victoria. The couple managed to overcome the difficulty by arranging for the clergyman who was to marry them to perform the ceremony on a spit of sand projecting from the Victorian bank of the river. The bridal couple, and their witnesses, took a boat across from the New South Wales bank to the spit, and the marriage ceremony was performed. In the fullness of time, they had several children. Subsequently, some one raised doubts about the validity of the marriage under the laws of New South Wales. The couple sought the advice of two eminent King's Counsel, and of the Speaker of the New South Wales Legislative Assembly. Two of those legal luminaries advised that the marriage was invalid, and that, in law, the children were illegitimate. On further research, so it proved to be, and the unfortunate couple had to go through the form of marriage again in order to legitimize their children. I doubt whether the legal position has altered since that incident occurred. It seems extraordinary to me that one ground for divorce may operate in one part of Australia, and not in another. A similar situation arises in the United States of America. An American gentleman with whom I travelled on one occasion told me that, early in his life, he had married in haste. He and his wife subsequently parted at leisure after World War I. However, in New York State, where they had been married, the only ground for divorce was adultery. That was about the only ground that was not mentioned in the plea when they were divorced in California. This gentleman told me, rather humorously, "When I visit New York, I telephone my former wife, tell her that her lawful husband has returned, and ask what she intends to do about it ". The situation may seem humorous, but it is a travesty of national law, which should be uniform throughout the land. The honorable member for Balaclava has introduced a measure, which, as I have said, will apply uniform marriage and divorce laws throughout Australia. We are not at present discussing the question of whether divorce should or should not be permitted. That question was settled in the social consciousness of the people a very long time ago. The matter now under discussion is how best to apply uniformly throughout Australia the principles of the law in relation to marriage, divorce, and the custody of children. I am able to consider this measure in the light of certain experience in the administration of child welfare in New South Wales. Certain considerations implicit in that most important field should be impressed upon the public mind. I was at one time involved in a certain amount of research into the causes of child delinquency, and the reasons why children were committed to reformatories, institutions for delinquents, truant schools, and the like, in New South Wales. It was significant that more than 90 per cent, of the children committed to such institutions came from broken homes, or homes where only one parent remained. However, the overwhelming majority came from broken homes. Surely there is a moral to be learned from that. The worst aspect of divorce is its effect upon the unfortunate children of the marriage. There is no stronger factor in national life than the continued happiness of a normal family life. Throughout history, the plainest indication of the decadence of a people has been the increase of the number of divorces. Having regard to those factors, I take this opportunity to urge the press of Australia to ignore completely the temptation to publicize the activities of certain film stars, as they are called, who seem to have an urge to figure in innumerable divorces and marriages. The publication of photographs of film stars with, for example, their tenth bride, solely for publicity purposes, constitutes a public scandal and makes a travesty and a mockery of a great institution and a sacrament. The press, by pandering to that urge for publicity, does much to undermine the moral consciousness of the community. There was a time, **Mr. Acting Deputy Speaker,** when, quite rightly, it was considered a very serious thing for a person's name to figure in a divorce action. But film stars are photographed, and almost glorified, by the press for their news value. Admittedly, the press must have a freedom which I have always been keen to see preserved, but freedom sometimes passes into licence, and results in public indecency when this kind of publicity becomes common, not only in second or third rate journals, but also, unfortunately, in those that have high standing and popularity in the community. I have not a legal background, and I am not clear how far the provisions of this measure with respect to the custody of children may impinge on the child welfare powers of the States, and how much it could be used to override those powers. I think that there is still in existence an agreement under which the New South Wales authorities may have committed to their care children from the Australian Capital Territory who are delinquent, or are likely to lapse into a career of vice and crime. I think that the South Australian authorities perform a similar function with respect to the Northern Territory. The State authorities, by reason of the various agencies through which they control education and the welfare of children, are in an excellent position to pass judgment in these matters, and to determine whether children are neglected or are properly cared for. Although I do not think that this measure will impinge upon State administration in the child welfare field, I should like to see some light thrown upon the subject. The Minister for Supply **(Mr. Beale)** stated that the people of some States will be deprived of important rights that they have enjoyed for generations. If one can find a certain element of humour in a measure of this kind, I may say that I find some humour in the Minister's use of the word " enjoy ". I know precisely what he meant, but I am rather curious as to the full implication of his remark. In the first place, it is undesirable, and, at times, difficult and dangerous, to attempt, by an amendment of the law, to take away a right that people have enjoyed for a long time. But people who have used the provisions to which reference has been made no longer are interested in them. The bill provides that cases already in progress shall be concluded under existing legislation. People who are not contemplating divorce proceedings at the time of the passing of the legislation, cannot be considered to be losing some of their rights, because a right is something that one holds and exercises, and they will not be deprived of any right that they are exercising. The honorable member for Wilmot **(Mr. Duthie)** referred to the problem of enforcing maintenance orders issued against a husband. I have had a lot of experience - not as a private member but administratively - in matters of this kind in the State of New South Wales, and. I say that no matter what order a court, may issue, unless it holds the husband until he gives security or pays cash, its enforcement against persons of a certain type will always, be difficult. There is a certain type of husband who, long before divorce is sought, bolts and leaves his wife. Then,, when the order is made against him, he proceeds to lose himself as effectively as he can, and it is a matter of very grave difficulty to secure the maintenance from him. I do not know whether anything could be done by the courts that is not already being done to compel men, who do not have the decency in the first place to keep their homes together,, to maintain their wives and children after separation. I recognize that some people have mixed feelings on questions of marriage and divorce. I realize that divorce is, something that responsible, sober-minded people in the community regard with apprehension. They do not wish to see it made any easier to dissolve the ties which bind families together. At the same time, the experience of the past has dictated that there should be a means of enabling human beings to separate if it has become impossible for them to live in a state of amity or indeed safety, with one another. All those things have weighed no doubt with the honorable member for Balaclava, who has given so much thought and so much distinguished ability to the preparation of the measure before the House. I oppose any suggestion to transfer the responsibility from this House, where it has rested for over half a century, to another committee, to consider whether this legislation is desirable. I feel that at this stage the correct body to rectify the omissions of the past is the Parliament of the Commonwealth. I congratulate the honorable member and wish him success. If I might play on words, I hope that the honorable member for Balaclava will not meet his Waterloo in this case. {: #subdebate-32-0-s3 .speaker-KID} ##### Mr LUCHETTI:
Macquarie .- I rise to support the amendment moved by the honorable member for Werriwa **(Mr.** Whitlam). I do so. because I believe that this-. Parliament should not reach a decision hastily in. a matter such as this. The amendment asks that this Parliament appoint a select committee so that the talents of honorable members, here and in another place-, may be directed towards considering the views of persons interested in this subject. What has this House to fear from receiving information? What has this House- to fear from knowledge of this matter? I regard the effort of the honorable member, for Balaclava **(Mr. Joske)** as the effort of a private member to place upon the statute-book a measure which he believes, from his own personal experience and practice, to be right. The honorable member has given distinguished service in matrimonial jurisdiction, but this problem goes far beyond the legal technicalities;, it is. a human problem. The House has heard this afternoon the viewpoints of members of the legal profession. They have expressed their views upon this proposal in great detail, and I feel that the House will agree with me when I say that despite the fact that members on the Government side have suggested that the second reading should be carried, and that the Opposition's amendment defeated, the legal opinions expressed are poles apart. I think the Government should be frank with the honorable member for Balaclava. I make the prophecy that this bill will not go beyond the second-reading stage. Therefore, I intend to make some remarks which, in the normal course of events, I would have made in committee. The honorable member for Balaclava has interpreted in a general way a yearning of the people of Australia, not merely for uniformity in divorce laws, but for uniformity in all laws. As far as that goes, his attitude is to be commended. But I disagree most profoundly with him on at least one matter. I refer to the proposal to make insanity a ground for divorce. I also disagree most decidedly with the honorable member in regard to judicial separation. I believe that judicial separation should be preserved. It is my reading of the bill and my understanding of the remarks made by the honorable member for Balaclava that if this measure becomes law, judicial separation will be abolished. If that is so, the opportunity for bringing husband and wife together will undoubtedly be lessened and great difficulties will face those good citizens who try to reunite families. As other speakers have said, who are the sufferers when husband and wife part? Undoubtedly the sufferers are the children. I believe that the great responsibility of the Parliament is to work diligently to establish a condition of mind among the people which will make the present shocking state of affairs in which one marriage in eleven goes on the rocks, a thing of the past. In the material sense what causes divorce? It is caused by bad housing. All kinds of people are thrown together in all sorts of communal conditions. That is one cause of divorce. There is another grave problem facing the country to-day. I refer to the home in which the mother is obliged to go out to work to supplement her husband's income, because it is not sufficient to maintain a family as they have been accustomed to live in the past. All these problems are indicators to the breaking-up of home life. I believe that these material matters are basic questions for the Parliament to consider. I believe that marriage guidance councils and other similar bodies are all-important and that greater encouragement should be given to their activities. The amendment proposed by the honorable member for Werriwa envisages the gathering of information from marriage guidance councils andother such bodies. For that reason the amendment should commend itself to honorable members. As I have said, I am opposed to this bill in its present form. I have indicated that I believe that the speeches made by honorable members on the Government side, who are so far apart in their attitude towards the measure and in their beliefs about its contents, show that they are at cross-purposes with one another and that this situation demonstrates that an agreement is hardly likely to be reached. If there is in this Parliament a real desire that a bill for uniform divorce should become law, what better course is there to follow than to permit both the Senate and the House of Representatives to elect their representatives to a select committee which will gather information and be advised by specialists, not merely the legal gentlemen who obtain profit out of divorce? That committee could get much valuable information from those hardworking citizens who apply themselves to trying to keep couples together. It is necessary that they, too, should be consulted. The great pressure for easier divorce seems to be becoming a compelling motive that drives many people in this country. From one step to another, people are being driven along a course that I deplore. The views of the happily-married people of this country, those who are at home this afternoon, will not be heard in this chamber, because they have no problem. They are happily married. There is some feeling that divorce should be easier, and that view is being encouraged. As a consequence, honorable members are asked to consider matters of this kind. I say to the honorable member for Balaclava, through you, **Mr. Speaker,** that he has not proposed anything dramatic in this field, and I excuse him in some degree because he has proposed to reduce the number of grounds for divorce in Australia from 30 to eight. He is not responsible for the pressure that exists in this country at the present time for easier divorce and it would not surprise me, if the nation continues along the course it is travelling to-day, for it to finish somewhere along the road between Reno and Cairo, with some people advocating the type of divorce common in other parts of the world where a husband merely says, " I divorce you" three times and discards a wife. This Parliament ought to look at the measure in a light entirely different from the one in which it has been viewing it. I want to speak of the human aspects and to consider the bill from the point of view of the man and woman in the street. We have to reach an understanding on this matter of marriage and divorce and face the problem presented by the pressure to make divorce easier. We should not consider anything that might mean further estrangement of husband and wife - with the result that children will be neglected and will grow up, as another speaker has said, the progeny of broken marriages - who believe that divorce is the right and accepted thing. I want to see a return to those days when families sat around the fire with their parents, listening to the stories of home and loved ones, hearing of the development of this country and of the worth-while features of the lives of pioneers. How much better is this for children than their being brought up in institutions, believing that to be reared like chickens is the correct thing in any land. This Parliament should try to avoid any situation of that sort. I am bitterly opposed to the idea that the provisions for a judicial separation should be thrown overboard. {: .speaker-DQF} ##### Mr Snedden: -- Judicial separation keeps the parties apart. {: .speaker-KID} ##### Mr LUCHETTI: -- They still have the opportunity to come together at some subsequent time, and I think that opportunity should be preserved at all cost. I turn now to the belief that I hold most dear. I believe that insanity should not be accepted as a ground for divorce. This is a Christian nation, in all its forms. The British Commonwealth is a Christian commonwealth. The Monarch is a Christian; her coronation is blessed by a Christian ceremony. When an honorable member is sworn in this chamber he takes his oath upon the Bible in a Christian manner. Each day when honorable members meet in this chamber our proceedings begin with a prayer. We call upon Almighty God to bless the work in which we are engaged and the things that we are trying to do for the people of this nation. It might be said that the matters we are discussing this afternoon are legal and have nothing to do with the spirit. I say that marriage and the spiritual are indissoluble. They are one. It is not possible to separate the legal side from the Christian side. They are inseparably joined, and marriage is a sacrament. When couples join together in the bonds of wedlock they seek Almighty God's blessing. I remind honorable members of the vows that they exchange: " I take you for my lawful wife " - or husband - " to have and to hold, from this day forward, for better for worse, for richer for poorer, in sickness and in health, until death do us part ". The proposal before the House this afternoon is for an amendment of those vows that would make them, in effect, " in sickness and in health - unless you become incurably sick, mentally ". The proposal is that one party exchanging vows with another may make the reservation, " Of course, if you suffer mental ill health all the things that I have sworn to you will disappear ". A pledge or a bond is supposed to be something worth while; something to stand by. What is the position when a pledge or bond is given on a financial matter? Honorable members have heard references to the sacredness of the contract. I have heard here 1,000 times of the sacred contract. I remember particularly the years of the depression when a Premier of New South Wales suggested that payments overseas might be suspended temporarily, until the State of New South Wales got back on its feet. Every one heard then about the sacredness of the contract. The cry was, "You cannot do anything like that". It was said that any one who had given his word must pay his debt, but what is being done in this bill? It proposes to say to people who are Christians and have promised in a Christian ceremony to stay with one another and to raise a family together, in sickness and in health, for richer and poorer, until death, that the only concern is legalities. We are asked to believe that the Christian ceremony means nothing at all and that the bill is purely a legal measure. It is said also that in some States of the Commonwealth a provision that insanity shall be a ground for divorce has not proved to be such a bad thing and that there have been only about 36 cases of divorce under that heading. Nevertheless, I want honorable members to realize the scandalous injustice that would be done to persons who became mentally sick. Mental illness is no worse than tuberculosis, cancer, poliomyelitis, leprosy or any other serious or incurable physical infirmity. Yet, because a person becomes mentally ill - and we have a scandalous record of inactivity in the treatment of mental patients - we are asked to put him or her outside the law. This is a shocking indictment of a Christian community. A person who had been suffering from such an illness but had been restored, might find, on his return home, that his wife had divorced him and married some one else. {: .speaker-KZX} ##### Mr George Lawson: -- I know of such a case. {: .speaker-KID} ##### Mr LUCHETTI: -- The honorable member says he knows of such a case. {: .speaker-6V4} ##### Mr Daly: -- There would not be many Liberals left married! {: .speaker-KID} ##### Mr LUCHETTI: -- The honorable member, in his facetious way, says that not many Liberal members would remain undivorced But, with all solemnity, I say to honorable members that they are protected from being deprived of their seats in Parliament on the ground of mental ill-health, because, as far as I can learn, mental instability or insanity is not a disqualification for membership of this House. This matter should be faced in a realistic way. The way in which mental illness is dealt with in Australia is an indictment of the nation. Recently, a very eminent expert in mental diseases came from overseas and reported on the mental institutions of Australia. His report was a scathing indictment of those institutions and of government inactivity in even trying to deal with the problem of mental illness. Does the Government intend to allow mental disorder and instability to supersede other grounds for divorce? Would it tolerate the possibility of a bridegroom saying to his bride on the wedding day, after the ceremony, " It will be all right for us to remain married so long as you are in good health, but if, in the change of life, your health is so disturbed that you are compelled to go to a mental institution, I will be able to petition for divorce ". That is the effect of one provision in this measure. Clause 20 (1.) (g) provides that a ground for divorce can be that a party to a marriage - being a person who, at the date of the petition, is of unsound mind and is unlikely to recover, has been confined for a period of, or for periods aggregating, not less than five years out of the six years immediately preceding that date, in an institution where persons may be confined for unsoundness of mind in accordance with the law, or in more than one such institution. **Mr. Speaker,** I have some figures from the State of New South Wales relating to cases of insanity. In the year 1956, 2,458 persons were admitted to the mental hospitals of that State, of whom 741 recovered and 329 were relieved. In 1954-55, 2,292 were admitted; 694 recovered and 295 were relieved. In 1953-54, 2,178 were admitted; 691 recovered and 273 were relieved. In 1952-53, 2,251 were admitted; 652 recovered and 370 were relieved. In 1951-52, 2,308 were admitted; 666 recovered and 295 were relieved. The totals for those years 1951 to 1956 were 11,487 admitted, 3,444 recovered and 1,562 relieved. The total number of persons discharged from mental hospitals during that period was 5,006. I ask honorable members to take careful notice of those figures as they consider this bill. In all charity, they provide strong evidence why the bill should be referred to a select committee for investigation. It is not a matter of my opinion, or that of any other honorable member, or of any section of people outside of Parliament. Surely it is the right of both Houses of the Parliament to obtain all the information that can be obtained relating to a problem such as this, so that it can be carefully examined. I have further information which deals more specifically with the subject now under consideration. It consists of statistics relating to patients who have been in mental institutions for from three to five years and from five to seven years, and have recovered. Such persons would come within the ambit of this measure, if it were to become law. In 1955-56, the number of persons who recovered after being in a mental institution from three to five years was 58. In that same year, those who have recovered after being from five to seven years in an institution, numbered seventeen. In 1954-55, the numbers were 32 for the three to five year period and nine for the five to seven year period. In 1953-54, the figures were 25 and five respectively, in 1952-53 they were eighteen and eight, and in 1951-52, 21 and nine. In that five-year period, a total of 154 people recovered after having been from three to five years in an institution, and 48 people recovered who had been patients for from five to seven years. In the event of this bill becoming law - I very much doubt that it will - what would be the situation confronting any of those discharged persons? A former husband might find, upon being discharged from a mental institution, that during the time he was in the hospital his wife had divorced him and married some one else. Surely that is not a proper law for a Christian community to tolerate. I know that the vast majority of Australians would have no truck with such a proposal. If, because of some misfortune, one of the partners to a marriage became mentally ill, I am certain that the other partner would stand by him or her. He or she would attend the mental institution to bring succour and relief to the sick one and would pray incessantly for his or her recovery, invoking the blessing of Almighty God as earnestly as the couple, together, sought it on their wedding day, so that once more their mutual life might be restored. Under this bill, a marriage partner who had been admitted to a mental hospital, through no fault of his own, would run the risk of losing his life partner. The tempo of life and of society is rapidly increasing and the pressure upon all. aspects of living is exceedingly great. If a person happens to break under the stress and tension and is committed to a mental institution, is he to be deprived of the love and companionship of his marriage partner? I ask honorable members to look back over their own lives and experiences and recall some of the very good people whom they have known, who, without any apparent reason, had a mental breakdown and were admitted to a mental hospital. Because of a lack of knowledge of how to treat mental illnesses and a lack of a real desire to do something to help the mentally sick, we have been satisfied with a system of locking mental patients behind the high walls of institutions, as though they were criminals, instead of making a real attempt to find some relief for them. If people are afflicted with some other kind of illness they are entitled to, and are given, the best medical care and attention. There is certainly no justification for a law to provide that when a person becomes mentally ill his partner in marriage should be able to obtain a divorce during his period of incarceration. It may be argued that while a wife is in a mental institution, her husband is subject to great suffering because he has been deprived of her society. That may be so, and it is a great burden for him to carry. But what about the burden that is being carried by the unfortunate wife who is suffering through mental ill health? I oppose the motion for the second reading and support the amendment moved on behalf of the Australian Labour party so that this matter may receive more mature consideration. I believe that the House, in its wisdom, will agree to the amendment. The display of petty, party, partisan politics by members on the Government side, irrespective of the fact they have been invited to treat this matter on a non-party level, should disappear. I am certain that Government supporters are opposed to the bill brought down by my friend the honorable member for Balaclava **(Mr. Joske).** They want to jettison the measure and forget it. They are prepared to discuss it to the second-reading stage, then to let it rest there and do no more about it. But the honorable and decent course to follow is for the House to agree to the amendment so that a thorough and searching inquiry into this and allied matters may be made. Debate (on motion by **Mr. Freeth)** adjourned. Sitting suspended from 5.55 to 8 p.m. {: .page-start } page 1850 {:#debate-33} ### CUSTOMS BILL 1957 Message received from the Senate intimating that it had agreed to the amendment made by the House of Representatives in this bill. {: .page-start } page 1850 {:#debate-34} ### BILLS RETURNED FROM THE SENATE The following bills were returned from the Senate: - Without amendment - >Wool Research Bill 1957. > >Wool Tax Assessment Bill 1957. > >Wool Use Promotion Bill 1957. > >Norfolk Island Bill 1957. Without requests - >Wool Tax Bill (No. 1) 1957. > >Wool Tax Bill (No. 2) 1957. {: .page-start } page 1850 {:#debate-35} ### QUESTION {:#subdebate-35-0} #### AUSTRALIAN ECONOMY Debate resumed from 9th May (vide page 1270), on motion by **Sir Arthur** Fadden - >That the following paper be printed: - 1957 and Beyond: An Economic Survey. {: #subdebate-35-0-s0 .speaker-0095J} ##### Mr HOWSON:
Fawkner .- I think that every member of this House will welcome the economic survey which was presented to the Parliament by the Treasurer **(Sir Arthur Fadden)** two weeks ago. Honorable members will welcome, too, the fact that such surveys are to be made at annual intervals, because through them they are able to get an idea of the way in which the general economy of the Commonwealth is progressing. On looking at the document now before the House, each one of us must be struck, first of all, by the fact that it is a very good survey of the period from 1953 to 1957. It shows how the boom developed during the first two or three years of that period, and it indicates the various efforts that were made to correct the boom conditions during the period of readjustment, ending in the strong fiscal policy that was announced to this House just a year ago. The survey shows us very clearly the magnificent effect that the action taken by the Government twelve months ago has had on our economy. I believe that we can say that at no time during the last 20 or 30 years have we had such a picture of economic stability as that shown to us at the present time, and that we really have at least produced a stable base for a sound economic future. Therefore, we must say that the action taken by this Government twelve months ago has been remarkably successful, and that the Government is to be congratulated on that ground. Secondly, the survey deals with the future, particularly in respect of the period from 1957 to 1962. It looks at the picture of the growth of population, and it surmises that the policy of the Government regarding population growth by immigration will be maintained at the rate of 1 per cent, a year. I am fully in agreement with the Government's policy of stable, planned immigration, and I hope that this policy will be maintained throughout the whole of the period envisaged by the economic survey. This nation can easily absorb a 1 per cent, per annum increase of population by immigration, and it is immensely significant to our growth in the years to come that that rate should be maintained. Therefore, from the population angle we must welcome the picture that is presented by this survey. I should like to comment, further, on some of the other factors outlined in the chapter which deals with the problem of the growth of the Australian economy. I believe that the survey has not looked closely enough at the question of pro ductivity. On page 20, honorable members will see an outline of the conditions which will have to be taken into consideration in relation to productivity. The outline embraces many difficulties, such as the problems of management, technical and scientific training, capital replacement, public administration, and so on. All of those matters are dealt with, and we must welcome the fact that the survey highlights them. It refers also to the difficulties in which Australia, as a country with a small economy, finds itself in not having the benefits of largescale production which are enjoyed by its competitors overseas, particularly the United States of America, the United Kingdom and Western Europe. I believe that the survey, in discussing this question of productivity, has not taken account of some of the more hopeful prospects that lie before us. For instance, it is stated that the lag in our economy that was apparent immediately after the war has largely been overtaken in various sectors, and that industrial capacity generally has kept abreast of expanding current needs. Therefore, we can say that the lag occasioned by the war years has now been overcome. If we look at the " Treasury Information Bulletin " of April last, we shall see that never in our history has so much money been spent on new capital investment. In the year 1955-56, more than £300,000,000 was invested in new buildings and new capital equipment. The prospects for 1956-57 are that an even greater amount - a total of £345,000,000- will be invested in new capital equipment, more than half of which will be expended on machinery and labour-saving devices. Therefore, it can be said that the effects of this large increase of capital expenditure are going to be felt in the years to come. The survey indicates that we must plan for at least a doubling of electric power capacity during the next ten years. This envisages a great increase of productivity. It seems to me that this increased investment during the last few years must result in accelerated industrial and economic growth in the years to come. We have only to look at the industrial revolution that has taken place in so many of our industries over the last few years to agree that that must be so. Consider, for instance, the changes that have taken place in farming methods as a result of the large increase in the use of tractors; the increase of steel production, as indicated by the vastly increased efficiency at Port Kembla and Newcastle; the increased mining activity, not only coal-mining, but also open-cut mining and mining for non-ferrous metals. There has been an industrial revolution in those activities during the last five years. In addition, in the lighter industries, such as textile manufacturing, remarkable advances have been made. All this leads me to believe that the growth in the next ten years will be vastly accelerated compared with the growth of the previous ten years. I hope that a revolution similar to those I have already mentioned will take place in the building trade and on the waterfront. It means, however, that if there is to be this period of accelerated growth, the Government's fiscal policy must be brought into line with such a vision of things to come. This problem could well be illustrated by the effect of fiscal policies in Western Germany compared with fiscal policies in the United Kingdom. An article in the " Review of the Institute of Public Affairs", of March, 1957, dealt with the fiscal policy operated by Western Germany in the last few years. The Western German economy had accelerated out of all proportion to any other economy in western Europe or the United Kingdom. Therefore, though one may not believe entirely in the methods that have been adopted, some lessons may be learned from it. Speaking of financial policy, the article said - >The loose policies ... are fatal to freedom, in that they eventually compel resort to detailed control to stem the tide of internal inflation and external balance-of-payments difficulties. The article also said - >Tight money provided the essential basis for the revival of consumer saving: confidence in the currency. The economy of Western Germany was based on a tight control of credit and, at the same time, a loosening of other minor restrictions. The policy was designed to promote saving by various fiscal measures. Tax concessions were introduced favouring enterprising and hard-working people. Labour was encouraged by making overtime earnings exempt from tax. Incentivekilling income taxes were reduced, whilst customs, excise and sales taxes were increased. The latter taxes accounted for 50 per cent, of Germany's total tax revenue, as against about 30 per cent, in Australia. Finally, exemptions from tax were extended to people investing their savings in construction and in savings deposits. Whoever was able to save could thereby reduce his taxes. Accelerated depreciation was permitted on capital expenditure for new plant and buildings. The results of the fiscal policy that was introduced in Western Germany can be seen. In the last year we have gone over from the minor types of control to a period of tight financial and fiscal policy. The period of tight credit is now bearing fruit in the remarkable stability of our economy that we are now witnessing. At last, therefore, we have achieved that stability which each one of us desires. I believe sincerely from the example that has been given overseas that, if we maintain that policy of tight credit control, we should at the same time be able to lead to a relaxation of other controls, in due course to the relaxation of import licensing, and to a programme that will encourage savings such as that illustrated by the Government of Western Germany and also as illustrated to us in the House only yesterday by the honorable member for Cowper **(Sir Earle Page)** in the attention he drew to the emphasis on the encouragement of savings. Finally, I refer again to the question of population growth. Our population to-day is equal to that of the United Kingdom at the time of the William Pitt era of United Kingdom history that ushered in one of Britain's greatest periods of industrial expansion. Would this rather timid attitude to growth that is envisaged in this survey have been a help to the United Kingdom at that time? I was interested in the remarks of **Sir Douglas** Copland recently on this rather timid approach to the- economic survey. Surely, if ever, now is the time to look at the wider horizon and at the tremendous period of growth that is opening out before our eyes to-day. I believe that we are right in this policy of tight control of credit, but the time is more than opportune for us to offset that policy with incentives for saving, incentives for labour and for people who are prepared to work hard, incentives for small businesses, and incentives for capital by greater allowances for depreciation and for re-equipping industry with more modern machinery. If we have that one policy of tight credit control, we can relax other controls that to-day bind our economy. We can leave it to individual Australians to promote this period of growth as rapidly as possible. More than ever, now is the time for this Government to give a lead to the nation to provide for one of its greatest periods of growth in its history. {: #subdebate-35-0-s1 .speaker-JAG} ##### Mr CREAN:
Melbourne Ports .- The economic survey that is before us is a most comprehensive document, and it is, of course, impossible in the space of 20 minutes to cover everything that it attempts to embrace. It is an official document, and is an attempt on the part of the Government to look at what has happened in the past and and to try from that to look forward into the future. Indeed, the document is grandiloquently described as " 1957 and Beyond ", although, if it be read carefully, the first part of it is really hindsight justifying the little budget of March last year. What it attempts to do, of course, is to whitewash the failure of the Government to grapple with the situations that existed in the economy in 1955 and 1956, and which made the measures of the little budget necessary. So far as the document can be used as a guide, it would seem that in the past the circumstances that led to the March budget were an uncontrolled price inflation which had been fed by an excessive amount of bank credit. That seems to me to be clearly indicated in the document. Then the document goes on to suggest that perhaps there are some instructive things that can be derived from the circumstances of the past. Referring to the experiences of 1955-56, the survey said - >The most instructive thing may be that such a spasm could occur without provocation from abroad and despite firm control on public expenditure. I suggest that one or two facts which emerge from this economic survey should be pointed out. Whilst it is true that the boom was not effected by events which occurred outside this country, but was mainly the result of economic circumstances within this country, perhaps our economy has one or two trends at the moment which demand scrutiny and a little more light than this survey has thrown upon them. The great question which people are asking about the Australian economy concerns the prosperity that some people assume exists. In my opinion, it does not exist for everybody. On this side of the House, we have pointed out quite often how easy it is to talk economic jargon - to talk in terms of aggregates, and ignore the distribution of income within the community. At the moment, people are putting a great question mark against the possibility of a drought occurring in considerable parts of Australia, an experience that we have not had for some time. An examination of the circumstances reveals how farm incomes have risen over the past twelve months. Of course, in the event of a drought, farm incomes could fall, and that could have considerable repercussions throughout the community. To-night, I am simply directing attention to some of the problems that exist, and I suggest that the Government ought not to be so complacent about its achievements. If the economic statement is read carefully, it will be realized that the Government was not as wise in 1955-56 as it now claims to have been, after the event. We of the Labour party have considerable doubts about the Government's ability to grapple with circumstances at the moment. There has been a considerable amount of talk about aggregates, and the great question of how much of a community's income should be consumed and how much invested; or, to put it another way, how much of the people's incomes should be spent and how much should be saved. I point out that it is essential, in the first place, that the great majority of the people should receive an adequate income. One disturbing trend, which is indicated in this document, relates to total employment in Australia. The population of Australia is growing at the rate of about 100,000 people a year through natural increase, and by an additional 100,000 through immigration. This means, broadly, that nearly 80,000 more people should be in jobs at the end of each year than there were at the beginning of the year; yet the document before us states that between December, 1955, and December, 1956, total employment in Australia increased only by 15,000. The document points to the fact that the rate of increase in employment was less during 1955-56 than during the previous twelve months. It might be asked, " If employment has risen by only 15,000 during twelve months, what has happened to the 80,000 people who should have got jobs during the year? ". Of course, there is always a flow backward and forward in these cases. The document attempts to gloss over the circumstances by suggesting that perhaps fewer married women are working now than in the past. However, there is another trend which is ominous. During the last eighteen months, in referring to prosperity in this country, the Government has talked, not in terms of a standard wage - that is, the nominal wage that should be paid for a 40-hour week for which the trade union movement has fought over a considerable period - but in terms of what the Government and the statisticians call an average wage. That term includes, not only the wage received for the standard hours worked, but also the money earned for overtime, and most people need to work overtime in order to derive sufficient weekly income to make things go round. This survey mentions that, during the past twelve months, the rate of increase of the average wage has declined. It seems to me that these facts are not evidence of continued prosperity. They are, at least, indications of a kind of hesitancy in the economic tempo. The survey also reveals that a smaller proportion of people's total incomes were on durable goods, and that a large proportion was spent on food. Again, this would merely seem to indicate that, because inflation has been allowed to continue, and because the average wage has not kept pace with inflation, a greater proportion of income has to be spent on food, and less remains to be spent on those things that are conveniently called durable goods. With all respect to my friend, the honorable member for Fawkner **(Mr. Howson),** who talks of grant aggregates and of saving, consumption and productivity, I say that the business tempo in any community is set, ultimately, by the feeling of entrepreneurs or businessmen, of those who control what is rather vaguely described as private enterprise. It is their confidence, or lack of it, in the future that ultimately determines the economic tempo. If they feel that people have smaller surpluses to spend, whatever theories there may be about the need for greater production, or greater productivity as it is sometimes called in another context, they will not increase production. If we read the statements of businessmen and other people engaged in commerce we find that they are not as wildly enthusiastic about the Government's economic statement as are the honorable member for Fawkner and some other members who support the Government. They say that the Government is not grappling with the many economic problems that exist in Australia. One or two of those problems have been aired in the House recently. There has been the question of housing. Nobody can gainsay the fact that there is much less home-building to-day than there has been in the past. It is true that more money is being spent on the building of factories, but if the present feeling of malaise becomes more widely diffused throughout the community it will not be very long before a recession will begin in the building industry. It seems to me that all these things are straws which ought to indicate, if a wind is blowing, that something needs to be done by the Government. This document points out the heavy burden imposed by invisible items, particularly freight, upon the balance of payments - that most important question for Australia. It shows that what appears to be a favorable trade balance, that is, the difference between what we have exported in the current period and what we have imported in the same period, is whittled away by excessive freights and other invisible items. Again, the Government, in attempting to increase our international reserves, is relying not on the normal balance of trade at all, but on further investment in this country. A few weeks ago, when a proposed loan from the International Bank was before this House, honorable members pointed out how Australia was becoming more and more dependent upon the United States of America for capital. American capitalists do not invest in this country for philanthropic reasons. They do so in expectation of ultimately drawing dividends, and they have done very' well out of it. The flow to the United States of America of dividends and other payments on capital is becoming almost as great as the flow of Australia's normal exports to that country. It is illuminating to learn from this document that the Government apparently sees some virtue in the arguments that were advanced on this side of the House, because there is a minor treatise upon the pros and cons of international investment in Australia. At least there has been a belated recognition of the fact that sometimes it is not a wise policy to welcome indiscriminately any one who wants to invest here, because there has been anything but a perfect balance in such investment. Again, there is an interesting and rather involved argument on this question of investment and investment policy with which, of course, is bound up the fundamental question of consumption and savings. These subjects are creating a great deal of discussion among economists and business people and we too should welcome all the discussion that we can get because these questions are not simple questions. Bui I doubt whether the basic economic problems of Australia can be expressed in such phrases as, " Australia cannot expand on the basis of a credit squeeze ", which seems likely to become one of the classic expressions of Australian economics in the next twelve months just as, six or seven years ago, we had the expression " milk-bar economy ". There may be a certain substratum of truth in these rather broad generalizations, but at least they should be recognized as generalizations and subjected to a great deal more critical analysis than is the case at present. The survey also points to the fact that too little is known in Australia about the extent of what, again, is broadly called " savings " and its sources, the changes that occur in savings, and the influences that determine these changes. Again, the thing that is obscured is that it is virtually impossible for the vast majority of the community to save at all because they are either wageearners, whose wages are not rising as fast as prices, or they are on fixed incomes, and I have in mind especially the pensioners. It seems to me to be the height of impertinence, so far as large sections of the community are concerned, to talk about the problem of savings. Broadly, the major part of the Australian community's savings come from two principal sources. First, savings come from taxation - the surplus, after expenditure is taken into account, of the revenue that is collected by the Federal Government. This surplus is used to finance public works. Secondly, savings come from undistributed profits and depreciation aliocations on the part of corporate enterprise. All too little is known about the extent of savings on the side of corporate enterprise" especially. Every now and again appealsare made to the people to save more, the; exhortation being, "The more you save to-day the greater will be your capacity far consumption to-morrow ". {: #subdebate-35-0-s2 .speaker-KSC} ##### Mr SPEAKER (Hon John McLeay:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA Order! The honorable member's time has expired. {: #subdebate-35-0-s3 .speaker-DB6} ##### Mr WENTWORTH:
Mackellar -- When I listen to the honorable member for Melbourne Ports **(Mr. Crean)** I am unable to repress the thought - the unworthy thought perhaps - that he is parading his lack of inspiration in order to endeavour to appear logical, hoping that the deduction will be drawn that what is so passionless must necessarily be profound. It is therefore with some disappointment that I have listened to his rather rambling speech, which lacked logic and, I felt, rather lacked point. In this, of course, he was only giving vent to the washed-up socialism, the sub-conscious Marxism, which shapes the economic thinking of the Opposition. I want now to turn to the paper before us. This, and its predecessor, record fat years. There have been good seasons up till now. The terms of trade were never more favorable. New discoveries in minerals, in techniques, and in agricultural science - myxomatosis is one - have added untold millions to the national wealth. In the face of this I find it somewhat disquieting that this survey does not show a better picture. It does have some disquieting features. 1 have spoken in this House previously of what I have described as the " kangaroo economy ", proceeding by leaps and bounds, and not always forward. We seem to go on with a rush and then - to vary the metaphor - the tap has to be turned off. There is restriction and everything seems to stop for a while. I feel that it would be better if the tempo were, if not uninterrupted, at least more even. But what worries me more is that in these years there has developed a necessity, from a financial viewpoint, to impose policies which must in the long run have a socialist implication. 1 refer to two things in particular - the endemic credit restrictions and import licensing - both things which this Government, by its basic philosophy, dislikes; both things which this Government would like to get rid of as soon as it can. What is wrong, therefore? What is it in the policy of this Government - it dislikes these things, in contrast with the socialist Opposition, which, of course, would welcome them - which makes it necessary for us to have recourse to them? I believe that the crux of our economic problem lies in the deficiency of savings and overseas investment compared with the capital expenditure which is needed to finance our present development. For any financial policy to be successful in the long run, it must take cognizance of this basic disequilibrium. We have been using bank credit, and the restriction of bank credit, far too much. Credit restriction is a useful, and sometimes indispensable instrument for dealing with a short-term disequilibrium. It is not a suitable instrument for dealing with a long-term disequilibrium. I think that, perhaps, the root trouble with our financial policy has been that we have endeavoured to use a short-term weapon in an attempt to achieve a victory over a long-term enemy - a deep-seated disequilibrium in the national finances. I admit that restriction of credit can be necessary in the short term; but, unless we can make it unnecessary as a chronic instrument, we are going to be forced into the kind of socialism that the members of the Opposition would welcome, and which I believe most members on this side of the House would abhor. We have to learn to be a little more subtle in our economic approach, to use, not a single weapon, but a number of weapons. Honorable members will have had before them the last issue of the Commonwealth Bank's Statistical Bulletin, and they will have seen, on page 86, the account of Australia's balance of payments. We are all delighted that, over recent months, the liquid balances of our overseas funds have built up so substantially. But, when we look at the components of this build-up in the analysis of the latest figures available, which are those for the first six months of this financial year, we see that almost all the build-up has been due to capital investment, amounting to some £60,000,000. On current account for the financial year 1955-56, our debit was £228,000,000. For the first half of this financial year, we had a credit of £11,000,000. Now, this is a very substantial improvement; in many way, it is a miraculous improvement. But it is not a satisfactory figure on which we can rest, because it is posited on good seasons and high wool prices, neither of which will, of necessity, continue indefinitely - and it has only been achieved with the help of severe import restrictions. {: .speaker-KVT} ##### Mr Thompson: -- Is that an overall figure? {: .speaker-DB6} ##### Mr WENTWORTH: -- That is the overall figure on current account. It does not take cognizance of the figures in the capital account, to which I referred separately a few moments ago. One of the most ominous things is the need to have recourse to a system of import licensing. I am afraid that this was inescapable. What we have to do is to endeavour to fashion a financial policy which will make such measures unnecessary for the future over the long term. Here, possibly, I part company with honorable members opposite, who see in import licensing a form of socialism which, of itself, would commend itself to their basic philosophy. This survey that lies before us very properly does not endeavour to postulate a policy. That responsibility lies on us, and not on the economists. I think it is our function to consider the remedial actions which may be taken, rather than to bewail the past, or to exhort, or to be unduly complacent, or perhaps unjustifiably proud of what has been achieved. What are the things we have to do? If my analysis has been correct, and if the fundamental problem which lies behind the rise of prices, the need for credit restrictions and the need for import licensing, is, in fact, the deficiency in savings and overseas investments, we have to turn our minds to means of increasing domestic savings and to means of increasing investment by other countries in our expanding and growing economy. Time does not permit me to say in any detail what can be done, but I might be allowed to suggest some things in broad outline. I believe more has to be done more quickly to get rid of our present means test on social services. The means test is one of the great things which stops domestic savings. People will not save under circumstances which make them say, " All that happens if I save is that I disqualify myself for a pension ". Indeed, there are very often times when there is negative saving - that is, deliberate spending by people in order to bring their savings to a level at which the means test will not apply. The means test, in its present form, is, to use what may seem a hard word, a luxury that this country can no longer afford. It is something we have to get rid of. I do not feel that we can just get rid of it simpliciter. The problem is more complex. I believe that we have to fashion a scheme of social services which avoids the inequities of the means test and the repressive effect which the means test at present exercises on the volume of domestic saving. I believe that, over the long term, this is a massive factor which has taken perhaps 30 years to have its effect, because it operates from the habits and inclinations of individual people - and the people concerned are mainly small people, although there are so many of them. I believe that the means test problem is something to which the Government should have turned its attention two years ago, because it is one of the root causes of our present financial difficulties. The second thing is that I believe that our income tax system has to be refashioned to give better concessions to the man with family responsibilities. We do need a family budget. Under our present system of Australian wages the man without family responsibilities has, perhaps, rather too much in comparison - let me underline the words - in comparison - with the man who has a family to support. I would think that it is through a proper use of the taxation system that this inequity could be most speedily remedied. I believe that this is one of the things to which the Government should have turned its hand years ago. I believe also that the income tax legislation might be amended in ways that would encourage saving, by makling certain savings deductions for income tax purposes, not only for primary producers but also for other people. Our handling of the bond market could be improved, and proper investment opportunities in equities, and especially in housing - particularly to permit a man to provide his own home for his family - should be provided. I think that those would be ways to increase domestic saving, although that is not an exhaustive list; it merely contains some of the heads that I should like to have an opportunity to discuss at greater length some other time. As for overseas investment. I think that we are entitled to get a little more on the debenture side as opposed to the equity side. I know that, here, I am completely at variance with Opposition members, but I suggest to them, once again, that they examine this Commonwealth Bank survey. If they do, they will see that, for the first six months of the current financial year, so far from receiving investment in the form of debentures, we have had a negative investment of something like £32,000,000, although there are some offsetting figures, including a net £4,000,000 that was received from the International Monetary Fund and the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development. I should think that, since we are bringing in so many people in our immigration programme, we might reasonably call for a higher degree of debenture investment in the Australian economy from overseas. I think that we should have dealt with this problem earlier, **Mr. Speaker.** I come now to other heads. We should have dealt earlier with the problem of uniform taxation. I do not think that we should have let it become aggravated until it could be solved only in a court of law. I think that, if there had been a firmer and more tactful approach - the two qualifications are not incompatible - to this question, it could have been successfully overcome. I do not think that our handling of the Australian Loan Council position has been as skilful as it should have been. It is now many years since I was an officer of the council, and I do not have uptodate information about what occurs behind closed doors at its meetings. However, looking at it from the outside, it seems to me that the States have become problem children, not merely because of the original sin in their nature, but because they have not always been treated with sympathy. I do not mean by that that they necessarily should always get more money than they have received. I mean that their problems have not received, from the Australian Loan Council itself, the sympathetic consideration that is so necessary. If, over a long term, meetings of the council were treated less as a contest in which the States endeavoured to get as much as they could from the Commonwealth, and the Commonwealth tried to keep as much as it could from the States and, instead, a national outlook were adopted, and a more co-operative approach to the problem were made, the new outlook would start to pay off after a time, although it would not necessarily pay off for the first year. I believe that we should think more of our domestic housing problem. We should be constructing 4,000 or 5,000 houses a quarter more than at present. In the time at my disposal, I cannot analyse the figures that lead to that conclusion. The increase of our productivity has been a little disappointing. 1 think that some of the repressive policy of some, though not all, of the trade unions have been responsible for that. However, I do not want to close on a doleful note. I believe that we have great opportunities. Australia may very well be on the threshold of the most rapid growth in its history. New mineral discoveries, new pasture techniques, and new industries, all offer new horizons which, for Australia, are without equal. We must find ways and means to apply these new techniques more successfully. This requires, not only that the Commonwealth must be on its toes to seize the opportunities afforded by scientific and other advances, but also that the entire community, including the Opposition, should think in terms of increasing Australian productivity as the only satisfactory and sound way of raising our standard of living, and ensuring that it remains high. {: #subdebate-35-0-s4 .speaker-KX7} ##### Mr WARD:
East Sydney -- Sometimes, I am inclined to believe that the honorable member for Mackellar **(Mr. Wentworth)** could make a worth-while contribution to the debates in this House if he would only forget his phobia about socialism. His fear of the Australian Labour party's policy distorts and warps the whole of his judgment and his approach to economic problems. Any one overseas who studied a copy of the Government's economic statement would naturally assume that the situation in Australia was good, and that all the indications were for continuing progress. However, any one living in this country who breaks away for a moment from the jargon of the economists, and gets down to a consideration of the hard facts of existing conditions, begins to have serious doubts as to whether this document, which has been prepared, ostensibly, to indicate the economic situation in Australia, is anything more than a Government propaganda pamphlet. This Government has been very fortunate in the seasons, and in other things. It seems to take to itself full credit for good seasons, and for the firm overseas markets in which we have received reasonably high prices for primary products, and all our important exports. It seems to suggest that these advantages have been due solely to the fact that this country is governed by a Liberal party and Australian Country party government. As a matter of fact, our economy is, in many respects, in such a precarious position that a serious drought for only one season would bring home to us most forcibly how unstable it really is. This document is not even a truthful statement of the economic situation. For that, I do not blame the economists who prepared it. No doubt, they acted under instructions from the Government, and were forced to write what they knew would please it, because they are its employees. It is stated, in the introduction to the document, that, in the period under review - that is, the period since the previous economic statement was made by the Prime Minister **(Mr. Menzies)** - the living standard in Australia has risen. How does the Government determine that it has risen? In this document, it proceeds to talk about the increased volume of spending on consumption goods, but it talks only in terms of money. How can it determine what is the living standard merely by considering statistics relative to expenditure, unless, in conjunction, it considers the relative value of the currency in the period that any given figure relates to? If we consider the problem on that basis, we find that the living standard has not improved; indeed, it is declining. The way to determine whether the standard of living has improved is to examine the consumption of foodstuffs, and to ascertain whether the people are buying more food. Any honorable member who examines the official statistics prepared by the various departments will see that, in recent years, the living standard in Australia has fallen substantially. I shall mention only a few basic foodstuffs, which are referred to in a reply given by the Minister for Primary Industry **(Mr. McMahon)** to a question that I placed on the notice-paper some time ago. He points out that the consumption of eggs, which are one of the basic foodstuffs, has fallen by three dozen a head a year from the pre-war level. The annual consumption of butter is down by 3.2 lb. a head. The consumption of sultanas is down by 1.3 lb. per annum and the consumption of meat is down by 24.6 lb. per annum. One can go right through the regimen of foodstuffs in this country and read the same story. Why are the people not eating as much of these commodities? ls it because they have changed their living habits? Of course, it is not. lt simply means that with the depreciated value of money since this Government took office, the people have not been able to afford the same quantity of food that they consumed in the pre-war period under the Chifley and Curtin Labour governments. So we find from this document, although the honorable member for Mackellar talks about his fear of socialism, the Government does not even propose a plan. The honorable member for Mackellar referred to our " kangaroo " economy. I remember a member of the Labour party on one occasion calling the Government a " fits-and-starts " government, and that is exactly what it is. What Australia suffers from to-day is a lack of proper planning. The only organization with any sort of an economic plan to benefit the people of Australia is the Labour party, with its socialist objective. Why should people be afraid of planning if it is in the public interest? There are all sorts of restrictions to-day in our lives as members of a civilized community. Nobody objects to them. When one talks of controls one should take into account the particular control that is suggested, and if it is for the good of the majority of the people, support it. What is wrong with that? Government supporters are opposed to controls because they think that they are an interference with the private enterprise economy which they favour and that they might hinder the opportunities of great organizations in this country to earn enhanced profits. I make no apology for saying that as a member of the Labour party I believe in economic planning, because it is the only way to make any real progress. 1 have said that this Government has been fortunate. Because of international tension, there has been a much greater demand for the product of our grazing industry - wool. The price of wool has remained fairly high, indeed much higher than was expected even by those engaged in the industry. The same thing applies to metals. But if the international tension eases, as we hope it will, obviously those prices will decline. It must be evident that, at the moment, the Australian economy is maintained in a relatively prosperous condition - if I may use the term " prosperous " apart from the condition of the people themselves - because of international factors beyond the control and influence of this Government. That is rather important and I do not know whether the honorable member for Mackellar realized it. The honorable member talked about housing. His criticism was directed against this Government because he said that the Government should be building 4,000 homes more each quarter than it is at the moment. I believe the figure should be even higher, but how is the honorable member's figure reconciled with the statements of the Prime Minister and the Minister for National Development **(Senator Spooner)** who have both said there is no crisis in housing, implying, no doubt, that ample houses are being built to-day to meet the needs of the Australian community? The economic statement makes no mention whatever of the terrifically enhanced profits that are being made by the great monopolies in this country. I want now to say something about uniform taxation. The honorable member for Mackellar spoke on this sub.pect. It is the Labour party's policy to maintain uniform taxation in this country, but we strongly support the attitude of the States when they say that this Government is not treating them fairly in reimbursements. The Opposition believes that it is a completely dishonest practice on the part of the Commonwealth Government to take from the people more in taxation than it needs for its own direct purposes. Under the Constitution the Government is not supposed to do that. But it dishonestly gets over this position by collecting tax which it has not even argued is required for its own purposes, and then allocating some of it to the States and some to trust funds. Then it raises special loans for the States, supplements them from the trust funds, and charges the States interest on such advances. That is completely dishonest. {: .speaker-K5L} ##### Mr Cope: -- The Government is acting as a money lender. {: .speaker-KX7} ##### Mr WARD: -- It means that the Commonwealth Government, by raising more tax than it requires for its own direct purposes and then lending it to the States, has entered the money lending business, as the honorable member for Watson **(Mr. Cope)** says. Let me deal with some other matters referred to in this document. I have mentined the value of money. All honorable members know that one of the greatest destroyers of the incentive of workers is the fact that because value is oozing out of their pay envelopes, they are not getting sufficient money to meet the requirements of their families. In recent years in Australia, families have been obliged to re-organize themselves. Wives have had to neglect their homes and children and go to work to supplement the family income in an endeavour to maintain the standard of living which they enjoyed in the post-war period under a Labour government. That is not, in my opinion, something that should be encouraged in this country. The Government should encourage womenfolk to remain in the home by giving the husband an adequate wage to maintain his Australian family at a decent standard. The honorable member for Mackellar made some reference to pensions and he spoke about the abolition of the means test. Some years ago, in an election campaign, this Government talked about a plan to eliminate the means test. It even stated that this would be done in a specified period of time. That may be an objective to which a great number of members of this Parliament subscribe, but the unfortunate pensioners who are in desperate need would be satisfied if the Government would even liberalize the means test, so that they could get relief. The economic survey concedes that Australia is having difficulty in finding markets for its surplus agricultural products. The statement to which I have already referred shows that our exports, instead of increasing, as a comparison of mere money values might suggest, are decreasing. Exports of cheese, frozen meat, canned meat, and dried vine fruits, have all declined and if it were not for the fact that the Australian consumer is asked to subsidize these industries they could not exist at all. I have here a comparison of prices in Australia and the United Kingdom which shows that the Australian consumer to-day has to accept a depressed living standard in order to keep these industries in existence. At the time this statement was prepared eggs were being sold in Australia at 5s. 3)d. a dozen, compared with 4s. 7d. a dozen in the United Kingdom. Butter was 4s. 6)d. in Australia but was selling in London for 3s. 9d. This disparity is apparent through almost the whole regimen of Australian products. In effect the Australian consumer is subsidizing those products on the overseas markets. For the purpose of maintaining some semblance of economic stability, this may be necessary up to a point; but in my opinion the whole situation should be reviewed and there should be a reassessment of the costing in these industries. It will be rather interesting to note what the Government proposes to do. As our population increases, our difficulties in feeding our own people will increase unless we are able to expand production. I know that a great deal has been done to improve the techniques employed by producers in primary industries but still not enough is being done. One thing that this Government ought to be doing, but is not doing, is planning for the proper use of nuclear energy to provide the power necessary to develop the inland of Australia and promote decentralization. AH this Government thinks about is developing and planning nuclear power for war purposes. If any continent in the world has much to gain by the development at atomic power for peaceful uses, it is Australia. Recently, I listened to a lecture by Professor Messel who told his audience of the development of atomic power in Australia. He said that one ton of uranium oxide could produce the equivalent in heat and power of 3,000,000 tons of coal. Every one realizes what an important thing this power production would be for Australia. It might be uneconomic to transport coal over long distances to the inland where fuel is required, but it would be a simple process to fly a ton or two of uranium oxide into the interior for the purpose of operating the power stations that are so urgently needed for development there. The trouble is that such a proposition is not attractive to private enterprise, so this Government will do nothing about it. The same consideration has prevented the proper development of the Northern Territory. Governments have submitted plan after plan for populating the north and have talked about the need for this for the sake of security. Any honorable member who reads the records of Parliament will become convinced that the only way to develop northern Australia is not by depending entirely upon free enterprise but through a socialist economy. In such an economy these areas can be developed in the light of national needs as against the present economy that functions for the benefit of those who wish to invest capital and make profits. I have heard supporters of the Government talk about the vulnerability of Australian industries in the south because they lie along the seaboard. Why are they there? They are there because there has never been any plan, and none is in prospect. When groups of persons have capital to invest, where do they look? Do they first of all ask where their capital investment can best be made in the national interest? Do they say, " Is it a national need that we should establish an industry in this place or that place? " Not at all! They first say, " Where can we make the most profit? Where is the nearest market for the product of our industry? Is transport available? Is power available? " These are the considerations that determine the private investment of capital. How can there be any decentralization on a proper scale in this country without the planned economy that honorable members on the Government side so strongly resist? I want to say a word or two in regard to the policy of the Government on public works. Strangely enough, though it talks about great increases in population it has said also that public works expenditure has been kept fairly stable. In an expanding economy this nation ought to be doing more than this Government is doing to put our resources to the best use. How can the economy be expanded unless there is a continually expanding programme of public works? According to the economists, within a few years some export primary industries will have no surplus at all to send abroad. Their entire production will be needed in this country to feed our expanding population. What will happen to the balance of payments problem when that situation is reached? Let me return to the question of nuclear power. This nation should be training technicians in this field. Skilled men are needed not only for research work, but also to operate power stations and use the power that could be produced. But, what are we doing? In this Parliament, one hears a great deal of criticism of the Soviet, but do honorable members know why the Soviet has had such remarkable success in the economic field? That country is working to a plan, and in the last years of a phase of that plan it trained more technicians than did the whole of the Western Powers combined. Go through the Australian universities to-day, and what do you find? The universities are training any number of doctors; they have any number of economists in training and any number of lawyers, but remarkably few technicians, the people that the Australia of the future will sorely need. The universities have very small numbers of engineers in training for the use of atomic power. This Government, instead of spending millions of pounds upon essential work for the future of Australia, is doing virtually nothing. It has failed to such a degree that universities throughout the Commonwealth, which are starved of funds, are unable to train sufficient technicians. Look at the University of Sydney. If it were not for the initiative of Professor Messel, who worked hard to establish the Nuclear Research Foundation and was able to gather considerable sums of money from trade unions, employers and other organizations, the work that the professor has been doing there in the field of nuclear energy would not have been possible. This document which has been presented to the House is not a factual document, lt is a propaganda sheet of the Government. What the people want to know is the exact economic situation in their own country. {: #subdebate-35-0-s5 .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- Order! The honorable member's time has expired. {: #subdebate-35-0-s6 .speaker-JLU} ##### Mr ANDERSON:
Hume .- When I was asked to speak on this matter I happened to look at the Opposition benches and saw the honorable member for East Sydney **(Mr. Ward).** I remembered my old philosophy that the worst always happens and I knew that I should follow him. I do not propose to follow through the whole of his distorted speech, but should like to make two points that demonstrate the value of his remarks. He said that the wage-earner is depressed under the Menzies-Fadden Government, and he extolled living conditions under the pre-war Labour government. He said that not once, but three times. The pre-war Labour government was the Scullin Government, which was in office when Australia suffered the worst depression in living memory. That is the way of life that the honorable member was extolling. He spoke also of central planning. After all, he is a socialist. He asked how the capitalist could be expected to invest money where there had been no planning. Does any honorable member believe that any capitalist would come to Australia under a socialist government to invest his money so that it would be confiscated? Socialism was the tenor of the whole of the honorable member's speech. He talked about the wonderful efforts of Russia. If he reads the international edition of " Life " magazine he will learn something of economic conditions in Russia and, perhaps, he will then have the grace to blush - if he can blush. I much doubt whether he can. This wonderful democratic-socialist government, which is what the Russians call themselves- {: .speaker-KDA} ##### Mr Duthie: -- They do not. {: .speaker-JLU} ##### Mr ANDERSON: -- They call themselves democratic socialists. In 1913, under the Czarist regime, living space in Russia was 75 square feet per capita. Under the democratic-socialist government now in power in Russia, living space in 1956 was 50 square feet per capita. That is one aspect of life in this socialist country of Russia, the land of wonderful achievement. What is 50 square feet? It represents an area 10 ft. by 5 ft., just about enough to accommodate four coffins. That is the living space per capita in the wonderful country of Russia. 1 wish to take a new line in dealing with the economic survey under discussion. It is a survey of last year's work in a capitalist country during a period of cold war. I want honorable members to think over this situation for a little. Recently, in the defence debate we talked about global war, limited war and cold war. Any statement of the economic situation must cover the result of the operation of the Australian economy during a period of cold war. Is it suggested that the Australian economy is not exposed to the effects of the cold war? The enormous strains and stresses on the economy are due almost entirely to the fact that we are engaged in a cold war. The Acting Leader of the Opposition **(Mr. Calwell),** speaking on a money bill the other day, said, with a look of sadness on his face, that he deplored the fact that under a Labour government the rate of taxation on higher incomes had been reduced from 18s. 6d. in the £1 to 13s. 6d. in the £1. He said that that was tragic. He implied that if the Labour government could have continued the higher rate of taxation, it would have worked miracles. He pointed out that in the United States of America taxation was high and that on an income of 400,000 dollars, taxation was 92 cents in the dollar, the equivalent of 19s. 4d. in our currency. To me, that is a great tragedy. I have often said that in this cold war we are forging the weapons for our own destruction. The cold war is making an enormous drain on the economic strength, not only of Australia, but also of the countries of the western world. In America, taxation on incomes of 400,000 dollars is at the rate of 92 cents in the dollar. That is almost the method that Karl Marx advocated for reducing a capitalist state to a socialist state. It has been forced on us by the cold war, or the economic war. We in Australia are feeling the strain. We have to spend a great deal of money on inflationary things simply because there is a cold war. Members of the Labour party approach this problem with the narrow outlook of socialists. They are constantly attacking the capitalist system and the Australian way of life. They say, " The Australian way of life is very fine, but we want to make it better by introducing a foreign ideology ". Curiously enough, wherever that ideology has been introduced, nothing but slavery and a police state have followed. That always happens, yet the members of the Opposition - reputedly people of goodwill - want to debase our way of life by putting their socialist philosophy into effect here. They should study the countries where democratic socialism has been in operation. They say that the capitalist system exploits the worker. Do honorable members opposite think that the workers in Australia are exploited under the capitalist system? What nonsense! The large number of car registrations shows without doubt that the workers are not being exploited. The Acting Leader of the Opposition talked about depressed conditions and about people being unable to buy enough food. He quoted figures indicating a decrease of the consumption of certain foodstuffs. For example, he said that the consumption of butter was now, on the average, 3 lb. lower per head of population. There were some things, of course, that the honorable member did not tell us. We can be certain always that he will not tell the full story. He did not mention that the tastes of the population of Australia have changed markedly because large numbers of immigrants have come here from Europe. They do not eat as much meat or as much butter as we do. The Italian eats macaroni and spaghetti. He does not eat as much butter or meat as do Australians. Consequently, the figures which the Acting Leader of the Opposition used to illustrate his point gave a grossly inaccurate impression. In view of the fact that a cold war is in progress, it might be as well to consider how our economy is standing up to the stresses it has imposed. In Russia, despite the tremendous build-up since the socialist regime was introduced in 1917, the economy is in nothing like as sound a position as in the capitalist countries. I wish to refer to some figures provided by **Mr. Colin** Clarke, a noted British economist who is well known to Australians. They show that, in 1900, when Russia was under a Czarist regime, the net national production per man-hour amounted to 33 per cent, of that of the United States. In spite of the enormous build-up under socialist planning, **Mr. Colin** Clarke estimated that in 1940 man-hour production had fallen to less than 20 per cent, of that of America, and to-day the figure is about the same. Standards of living depend on production, and as production increases so do the standards of living rise. The socialist would say that that is nonsense, but the facts prove otherwise. Why is the standard of living of the Indian selling his goods in a bazaar so depressed? It is because his output or production is so low that the economy cannot give him more than a bowl of rice or a little of some other food. The highest standards of living are found where production is highest. In Russia - this glorious land of democratic socialism - it was estimated in 1952 that real wages were somewhere between 63 per cent, and 90 per cent, of their 1928 level. After 40 years of socialism, most of the people in that wonderful land are gravely depressed because they have almost no consumer goods. The whole concentration has been on heavy industries. About 15 per cent, of the people are bureaucrats, party members. They are the people who enjoy luxury living. It is a curious thing that when people become possessed of great purchasing power, they want more. In America it was found that it was much harder to settle a strike by workers who wanted an increase in their wages from 1.50 dollars to 2 dollars an hour than it was to settle a strike by workers who wanted an increase from 60 cents to 70 cents an hour. Pressure on the Russian economy is beginning to be felt. The Russian people cannot obtain consumer goods. The force of circumstances compelled the rulers of Russia to increase wages and now the workers want to buy more consumer goods. Cracks are beginning to appear in the economy. The Russian economy has been largely supported by the satellite countries. Countries such as Poland and Hungary have been charged 33 per cent, more than world prices for Russian goods, while Russia has paid one-third less than world prices for its imports of German heavy presses, Czech shoes, Polish coal and Hungarian bauxite. But these satellite countries are becoming dissatisfied with that and are putting pressure on the Russians to raise their standard of living. The cracks are beginning to appear. Curiously enough, Russia is encountering great difficulty in finding man-power for its industries. All the killings and the losses through starvation of the Kulaks are having their effect. Russia's birth-rate has declined and the population is becoming smaller. Production of goods is much lower; there is no doubt of that. Of the Soviet Union's 96,000,000 civilian labour force, nearly half, or some 47,000,000, work on farms. By comparison, of the 65,000,000 people in the United States civilian labour force, about 10 per cent., or 6,000,000, are engaged on the land. Those 6,000,000 people produce twice as much food as do the 47,000,000 farm workers in Russia. That is the difference between the results of the incentive of private enterprise and the results of a rule of force. The socialist policy of production is forced labour. There is no private enterprise under socialism. It seems that black markets are increasing in Russia and are responsible for a great wastage of man-power and resources. I wish now to come back to the present condition of the Australian economy. The honorable member for Mackellar **(Mr. Wentworth),** in criticizing the Government, said that it had employed the bank credit system as a short-term method rather than as a long-term method which, he considered, would be preferable. But the two surveys that the honorable member was criticizing covered only two years of the economy. After all, the economy has been under the control of this Government for less than seven years, and during that time we have seen many economic changes. First of all, when this Government took office the effects of the 40-hour week were being felt to a considerable degree. Honorable members should not get it into their heads that I oppose the 40-hour week. I do not oppose it for certain industries, although I do not support it for all industries. I say, however, that the effects of the 40-hour week have been felt right throughout the economy, and that this Government took over responsibility for economic conditions while those effects were being felt most. The honorable member for East Sydney referred to the- wonderful, bountiful years that Australia has had while this Government has been in office. Of course, Australia has had good seasons, but it also has had three years of great tension, because during the Government's period of office the Korean War occurred. That is why I say that the economy of Australia, as depicted by this survey, must be viewed in the light of the fact that it is the economy of a period of cold war. If that is kept in mind, I think that the Government has made out a very good case. There is one point, though, that I would like to stress. It concerns bank credit. Our problems have been largely problems of production. It is the task of the Government to try to create a balanced economy, but it is unfortunate that while there are economic tensions, a completely free economy cannot operate. For instance, I have heard criticism concerning the system of import restrictions, but not one critic of the system has given an alternative. What are the alternatives in the present situation? If all the money in the world was free, our overseas balances would not present a very great problem, because money could be borrowed, and there would not be such enormous expenditure of capital by the allies in the cold war. Consider the case of America, for instance, and think of the enormous sums of money that that country spends on defence and foreign aid! Much of that money could come here to develop this country, just as could some of the enorm'ous sums that are spent on defence in the United Kingdom and other countries. In fact, we ourselves spend enormous sums on defence, with a highly inflationary effect. I think that there is need for reconsideration of the position regarding bank advances to primary industries. I do not say that necessarily because I represent the primary industries; I do so because I feel that primary industries are the major source of fresh capital for this country, and it is fresh capital that we want for development. If we cannot borrow capital, then let us try to earn it, which, after all, is the best way to get it. As at December, 1955, the total amount of money invested by the major trading banks in primary industries in Australia and New Guinea - that is, in sheep, wheat, sugar and so on - was £212,000,000. At the end of December, 1956, the total was £199,000,000, or £13,000,000 less. The amount invested in manufacturing Industries rose by £5,000,000 during that period, whilst the amount advanced in respect of transport, storage and communication - all matters which affect the primary industries- decreased by £1,000,000. The total in respect of finance and property declined by £2,000,000. I shall not refer to all the figures, but will merely point out that the grand total of business advances by the major trading banks at the end of December, 1955, was £723,000,000, whereas in December, 1956, it was £708,000,000- a decline of £15,000,000. Approximately a quarter of the total advances were made to primary industries - advances which, as I have said, declined by £13,000,000 during that period. I should like the Government to look at its finance policy so far as the primary industries are concerned, and to consider the advisability of making loans in selected cases. I do not mean that additional loans should be made to people to enable them to build expensive homes; I am referring to loans for the purpose of enabling people to produce more goods, such as loans for the construction of dams and for fencing, water reticulation, the purchase of new plant and machinery, and matters of that kind which affect production directly. I believe that that would be the quickest way to expand our export production. {: #subdebate-35-0-s7 .speaker-10000} ##### Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER:
Mr. Bowden -- Order! The honorable member's time has expired. {: #subdebate-35-0-s8 .speaker-KXI} ##### Mr WEBB:
Stirling .- The honorable member for Hume **(Mr. Anderson)** spent about three-quarters of his time in discussing the economy of Russia, which does not concern us to any great degree. I think it would have been far better had he devoted his time to discussing the economy of Australia. The honorable member deliberately misinterpreted the remarks of the honorable member for East Sydney **(Mr. Ward),** because when the honorable member for East Sydney com menced his speech obviously he was comparing our economy to-day with that of the days of the Chifley Government, when Australia had the most stable economy in the world. An economic report that was issued in 1953 stated that whereas prices in other countries with which the survey dealt had risen by 15.3 per cent, during the first three years of office of the Menzies Government, in Australia, prices had risen by 48 per cent. Of course, we know that they have risen considerably more since then, and that the increase is now round the 100 per cent. mark. The survey which the House is discussing was exposed by the honorable member for East Sydney as an unreliable document. He clearly indicated that it gave a false idea of the state of our economy. Even if it were a true exposition of the state of the economy, I should object to it on the ground that it treats Australia as a whole and seeks to apply the same economic measures to all parts of the Commonwealth, although we know that certain parts of Australia are suffering economically more than other parts. Although the survey attempts to paint a bright picture of the Australian economy as a whole, the fact is, of course, that in Western Australia the economic position is much worse than it is in the other States. Western Australia still has a large number of unemployed, and although the degree of unemployment at the present time is less than it was at the beginning of the year, it is still greater than it was at this time last year. That is not a healthy sign at all. The unfortunate aspect of the matter is that this Government has done little or nothing to help Western Australia financially. The question of assistance to that State, in its economic difficulties, was raised at the last Premiers conference, and the Treasurer **(Sir Arthur Fadden),** as the result of a decision of the conference, promised that Western Australia would receive assistance. The sum agreed upon at the conference was £4,000,000, but when the time came for the State to receive additional assistance, after a long period of waiting, the amount that was allocated was £2,000,000, which did nothing but prevent the position from getting worse. It did not result in any great improvement in the economic situation of the State, because for the greater part of last year there were between 5,000 and 6,000 registered unemployed, apart altogether from the many thousands of people who were working parttime, those who were getting a few days' casual work in the week and those who did not bother to register as unemployed. At present, practically all workers in the clothing trade in Western Australia are on part time. An unfortunate part of the position that had arisen was that Western Australia was not receiving any help from Liberal members who sit opposite. They were not supporting the claims that were made. That was so evident, that "The West Australian ", which is a newspaper that does not support Labour but normally supports the present Government, took Liberal party members from Western Australia to task for not pulling their weight and accused them of making this matter a political issue because Western Australia happened to have a Labour government. If Western Australia had a Liberal government, I have no doubt that more adequate assistance would have been given, or, if the Labour government had been prepared to introduce the Liberal policy of pegging the basic wage and refusing to give quarterly adjustments, I have no doubt that possibly the Government would have done something more for Western Australia. The honorable members who should be representing Western Australia on an important matter like this were not concerned that unemployed were sleeping on the beaches, that crime was increasing because of unemployment, that bankruptcies were occurring as a result of unemployment and that even suicides as a result of unemployment were reported in the press. They did not care that immigrants were arriving in Western Australia but could not get a job and that many of them left Western Australia because of the unfortunate situation that existed there at that time. The position was so bad that the Minister for Immigration **(Mr. Townley),** when he was there only a few weeks ago, said that the department had slackened off immigration and had not extended the " Bring out a Briton " scheme to Western Australia because the employment position was not adequate enough to give them jobs when they arrived there. Recently the Premier again asked for special financial assistance. He asked for it either in the form of direct assistance, so that the State could commence more public works, or assistance through the Commonwealth commencing public works, as it could well do. He suggested also that credit restrictions should be eased. When I asked the Minister for Labour and National Service **(Mr. Harold Holt)** a question recently, he said that the proposition that had been put to the Prime Minister some considerable time ago would be considered at the Premiers conference. I hope that there will be no delay in giving the assistance that is necessary to help Western Australia out of its economic difficulties. After the last Premiers conference we had to wait almost six months before assistance was given, though the Premiers conference had reached a decision in regard to it. {: .speaker-JWE} ##### Mr Casey: -- Western Australia was given £2,000,000. {: .speaker-KXI} ##### Mr WEBB: -- I know, but we had to wait six months for it. That is my objection. The amount that was given was inadequate for the state of the economy at that time. As I have already pointed out, the money barely prevented the position from worsening to any great extent, and there were still 5,000 or 6,000 unemployed during that period. If we can believe the newspaper reports - it has not been mentioned in this chamber yet - credit restrictions have now been eased. That is good, because it will help to resolve the unemployment difficulties of the whole of Australia. However, Western Australia will not forget that the unemployment position had to worsen in the eastern States before anything was done, even though we had asked that credit restrictions in Western Australia be eased. The number of registered unemployed throughout Australia has now grown to approximately 47,000, as compared with 33,000 last October. The unfortunate situation has arisen where employment is not keeping pace with the growth of population. I shall read from an article in "The West Australian" of Thursday, 9th May, to show the viewpoint of that paper and also the viewpoint generally of all influential bodies in Western Australia. The article reads - >When conditions were difficult here last year, some relaxation of credit on a West Australian basis was urged unsuccessfully. Now that unemployment has spread to the more industrialized States, the remedy of easier credit is being administered throughout Australia. West Australians can only wonder why the Federal Government denied them earlier relief and why Central Bank policy must be applied uniformly throughout the continent without regard for the difficulties within an individual State. > >Having decided to release more private credit, now is the time for the Federal Government to undertake a major public works project in Western Australia. That would be a big contribution to the task of fully restoring our economic fortunes. Our argument is that the same economic controls should not apply to all States. If there is a greater percentage of unemployment in one State than in another - whether that State is Western Australia or some other State - some consideration should be given to it in the form of lifting credit restrictions and in other ways. I shall quote from the "Treasury Information Bulletin" for April of this year to show how serious the home-building position became in Western Australia. The bulletin reveals that the percentage change on the 1955 figures was minus 31.3 per cent. Tasmania had the next worst position with minus 11.5 per cent. That shows how credit restrictions were affecting Western Australia. Western Australia has not the big industries that other States have. Consequently, any economic recession hits that State much harder than the others. I emphasize the last part of the article which appeared in " The West Australian ". The value of a major Commonwealth public work is shown in that passage. Committees from both sides of this House have recommended the standardization of the railway gauge between Kalgoorlie and Fremantle, and almost all influential bodies in Western Australia have expressed support for the scheme. The Premier has asked that it be given a high priority. About 85 per cent, of the unemployed in Western Australia - and indeed throughout Australia - are unskilled workers. Of the workers engaged on the standardization of the railway gauge, 85 per cent, would be unskilled. That type of work would absorb unemployed and, by its repercussions, would do much good for the economy. For instance, timber-mills would start rolling and other industries would move as a result of the increase in spending power. I should like to know, also, why this Government is delaying work on the Australian Broadcasting Commission studios which have already been approved as a new works project for Western Australia. Why should that be delayed for twelve months? Why could it not be started as an urgent measure in order to take up any slack that may exist in the building trade? Other matters, of course, would have a tremendous effect on restoring the economy in *Western* Australia. I mention the building of the naval base on the western coast and the Ord River scheme. Representations have been made to the Government from time to time about this scheme. I asked the Deputy Prime Minister **(Sir Arthur Fadden)** to-day why no reply had been received to the request made by a joint parliamentary committee which waited upon the Prime Minister almost two years ago. The Deputy Prime Minister said, "You cannot get a reply until the Prime Minister returns ". I said, " That will be a long time ". He said, " Another year will not hurt; it has been two years already ". That has been the attitude of this Government to a small State like Western Australia, when it should be receiving help. {: .speaker-JAG} ##### Mr Crean: -- He said that to the honorable member to-day. {: .speaker-KXI} ##### Mr WEBB: -- Yes. He said it in reply to a question. I hope that the people of Western Australia were listening to it. This Government is not carrying out the principles of the United Nations which provide for full employment. Full employment no longer exists in this country. That policy has been deliberately destroyed. It was destroyed in the first place by reducing the amount of money allocated to the States for their public works. At the last Premiers conference, the States were given £190,000,000. They had asked for £210,000,000 in order to continue the public works programmes which they had implemented during the preceding twelve months. I sincerely hope that at the forthcoming Premiers conference the Government will look at this matter and that there will be no reduction of the amount allocated for public works. Throughout Australia, credit restrictions have resulted in a 10 per cent. decline in housing construction. Bank advances have fallen by 48.1 per cent. according to the report that I have mentioned. No doubt, the deliberate purpose is to destroy full employment so that a percentage of unemployed will be waiting at the factory gates, ready to take the jobs of those within the gates. The Government's tight money policy has not stopped inflation, nor has it curbed excessive inflation. It has not got to the real seat of the trouble which is the tremendous profits being made by big businesses. It has hit the home builder, local government authorities, State governments, the worker, the pensioner and those who are in receipt of social service benefits. The Government, by its policy, has made conditions hard for almost every one. The little man has been hurt, the farmer has been hurt, the home builder has been hurt, and the small businessman has been hurt, but the big businessman has not been hurt. He is still reaping the big profits that he has always reaped. There has been a re-allocation of national income to the benefit of big business and private financial interests. That has been accomplished by means of higher interest rates, higher prices and higher profits. The percentage of farm income to national income fell from 13.9 per cent. in 1951-52 to 8 per cent. in 1955-56. In the same period, wages and salaries fell from 49.2 per cent. to 47.4 per cent. of the national income. Business incomes rose from about 28 per cent. in 1951-52 to 31.8 per cent. of the national income in 1955-56, an increase of 4.4 per cent. In 1952-53, personal savings represented 12.1 per cent. of the national income but in 1955-56 they fell to 5.3 per cent. But funds for investment, in other words business savings, rose from 8.7 per cent. in 1952-53 to 14.3 per cent. in 1955-56. Those figures reveal, not only a redistribution of income to the detriment of the small man, but also the real cause of inflation in Australia. They show that excess profits are being made at the expense of the workers, the pensioners and people on fixed incomes. Debate (on motion by **Mr. Killen)** adjourned. {: .page-start } page 1868 {:#debate-36} ### BILLS RETURNED FROM THE SENATE The following bills were returned from the Senate: - Without amendment - >Appropriation (Works and Services) Bill (No. 2) 1956-57. > >Supply (Works and Services) Bill 1957-58. > >Dairying Industry Bill 1957. Without requests - >Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 1956-57. > >Supply Bill 1957-58. {: .page-start } page 1868 {:#debate-37} ### MATRIMONIAL BILL 1957 {:#subdebate-37-0} #### Second Reading Debate resumed (vide page 1850). {: #subdebate-37-0-s0 .speaker-JXI} ##### Mr FREETH:
Forrest .- I join in commending the honorable member for Balaclava **(Mr. Joske)** for the patience and persistence with which he has pursued the ideal of a uniform divorce law for all Australians. There is no doubt that there is almost unanimous approval for the principle of uniformity. But in spite of that desire for uniformity, we must face the startling fact that it has taken the honorable member many years of pressure, always tactful and courteous but nevertheless incessant, to get this bill before the House. Over 56 years, no Commonwealth Government has felt inclined to sponsor such legislation although more than 56 years ago the fathers of federation believed that there should be such uniformity. The real reason for this state of affairs is one of which we must be fully conscious in our approach to this bill. In any community in the six States or the Territories of the Commonwealth, there will be a great division of opinion as to the grounds on which divorce should be granted. Getting agreement on uniformity does not even begin to solve the problem. It would be possible to have complete uniformity and to go to either of two extremes - no divorce at all, or divorce not simply by consent but unilaterally, which means that one party would simply need to say, " I divorce you ". I take it, from views that we have heard in this House, that few if any honorable members would be prepared to give a blank cheque as to what sort of divorce there should be, merely for the sake of uniformity. So, I plead with the House not to allow enthusiasm for the principle of uniformity, which we all accept and which we are all seeking to establish for the first time in Australia, to undermine a sober and realistic judgment of the sort of law which we should make uniform and which would best fit in with the kind of society we have in Australia. I have mentioned the two extreme views regarding the permanence of marriage. There are some whose religious beliefs make them wish for a society in which there is no divorce. Their objectives are, I believe, best served by lifting the standards of human conduct which are accepted by society. We have a duty to have regard to the best interests of society as it is, not as it should be. We have to pass laws for a collection of human beings who are imperfect. There is a wide variety of religious beliefs. There are men who have greater or lesser scruples in observing those beliefs. We have to consider the health and the happiness of men and women, and particularly children, in the community and the general stability of family life on which the community is based. Perhaps my point is best made by saying that in a community in which all marriages conform to the highest ideals it would not matter one scrap whether divorce was made impossible by law or, alternatively, so easy that it needed only one party to renounce the marriage. There is a further illustration of the difficulties which occur when the ideal of human conduct becomes confused with legislation regulating human conduct. In some parts of Australia, impotence and failure to consummate a marriage are grounds for having a marriage annulled; in other parts, they are merely grounds for divorce. I am told that, because of the difference in law between an annulment of marriage and a divorce, some churches place a different religious significance on the result. According to the principles of the particular religion, an annulment of marriage enables a party to re-marry; but, where the petitioner has sought divorce on one of those grounds, his action in seeking to re-marry would not be approved. That simply illustrates the curious confusion that occurs when we try to make religion legalistic and try to make laws religious. That is why **Sir Alan** Herbert was able to say that he could be as strongly in support of the ideal of enduring marriage as was any bishop and at the same time could be the foremost advocate of divorce reform in England. Let me say that, in support of the principle of uniformity, I intend to vote in favour of the motion for the second reading of this bill. However, at the committee stage I propose to move two amendments that I shall mention soon and which will be designed to remove some of the effects of the measure which I feel are at present far too restrictive. If the bill is not made less restrictive by amendment at the committee stage, either by the acceptance of the amendments that I propose to move or by the acceptance of other amendments designed to produce a similar result, I feel at present that I shall not be able to support it at the third reading stage. At the moment, I do not feel inclined to support the amendment that has been moved by the honorable member for Werriwa **(Mr. Whitlam),** which provides for the appointment of a select committee. {: .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr Whitlam: -- You vote for me and I will vote for you! {: .speaker-JXI} ##### Mr FREETH: -- I am merely announcing my intentions. I simply say that, if there is any indication at the committee stage that tremendously complex technical points remain unresolved, at a subsequent stage there might be scope for the work of such a committee; but at this stage I do not feel that a case has been made out for one. As I have said, all divorce law represents some kind of compromise between two extremes. The proper extent of that compromise will never be solved by a select committee. It is the duty of all honorable members, lawyer and layman alike, to make a sober and realistic effort to interpret the reasonable and proper requirements of the Australian community. I believe that the judgment of this House as a whole would be every bit as sound as the judgment of any select committee. For many years, committees and State law societies have been consulted on this matter, and there have been meetings of experts. What has happened? It seems that this bill is not precisely what those committees and State law societies have considered or agreed upon. It is the considered judgment of one man. Whilst we respect his judgment, it is the judgment of one man living in one State. We can only conclude that there was never any hope of reaching any reasonable degree of agreement, except as to the principle of uniformity. In England 100 years ago, there was no divorce except by act of Parliament in each case. We think that we have made progress in social conduct in 100 years, and during that time divorce has become progressively easier. Why has that happened? I suggest that one of the reasons was given in the House of Lords in 1943 when Viscount Simon, who was dealing with a particular case, said - >To these four considerations I would add a fifth of a more general character, which must, indeed, be regarded as of primary importance, namely, the interest of the community at large, to be judged by maintaining a true balance between respect for the binding sanctity of marriage and the social considerations which make it contrary to public policy to insist on the maintenance of a union which has utterly broken. I believe that true balance between the binding sanctity of marriage and the considerations of public policy which make it wrong to maintain a marriage which has utterly broken down is the sort of balance that this House should be striving for. The honorable member for Werriwa gave the House an interesting analysis of the grounds of divorce that were generally used. He showed that in over 90 per cent of divorce cases the grounds used were adultery and desertion. However, in the statistics relating to desertion were included the New South Wales ground of failure to comply with an order for restitution of conjugal rights and the Western Australian ground of five years' separation of the parties with no reasonable expectation of reconciliation. In New South Wales the non-compliance ground, according to the estimates of the honorable member for Werriwa, is the basis of approximately 30 per cent, of all divorces. In Western Australia, the five-year separation ground is the basis of 26 per cent, of all divorces. Yet neither of those grounds is included in this bill. My objection to the grounds of divorce that are contained in this bill is this: The honorable member for Balaclava has said that he has taken the grounds of divorce which apply in the majority of States. He has taken the highest common factor. I submit that, logically, that is a wrong basis. lt must be restrictive. Instead of maintaining a position that has been reached after a century of progressive reform, it puts the clock back. That is borne out by the fact that a total of 30 grounds for divorce in Australia has been reduced to eight grounds. Western Australia will lose two other grounds which I admit are relatively rarely used - three years' failure to comply with an order for maintenance, and the ground that is shortly described as anti-nuptial incontinence. For the sake of uniformity and the benefits that would be conferred by the bill, I cannot feel that any degree of hardship would be caused by the loss of those two grounds, because they are very rarely used. Strong fears have been expressed that any liberalization of the grounds provided in this bill - and they are the decision, as I said, of one man living in one State of Australia - would mean that the bill would have to be sacrificed. I submit to the House that that is complete nonsense. The remedy is in the hands of this House; it should amend the bill sensibly. I propose, therefore, to try to have included in the bill the five-year separation ground that I have mentioned. That ground was recently acclaimed by a New South Wales lawyer as being the major Australian divorce reform of this century. Let me say at this stage that the grounds of divorce that are available do not, by and large, make any substantial difference to either the number of broken marriages or the number of divorces. That may be a sweeping statement when we consider the social conditions that exist in America; but I qualify it by saying that, provided divorce is not made so quick and so easy that marriages are entered into with a state of mind which contemplates other than a permanent and enduring union, the grounds of divorce do not make a substantial difference to the number of divorces. I have two pieces of evidence in support of that proposition. 1 wish to quote firs: paragraph 50 of the report of the Royal Commission on Marriage and Divorce which sat in England from 1951 to 1955. The distinguished members of that commission were referred to with unqualified approval by the honorable member for Werriwa. What he did not mention was that, of the total of eighteen members, no less than seven were women. Paragraph 50 reads - >We do not think that the remedy for the problem of marriage failure lies in making divorce more difficult. If I may say so, this bill does make divorce more difficult for many of the citizens of Australia. The report continues - >In our opinion, the roots of the evil go too deep for such a course to be effective in dealing with the tendency to look to divorce as the obvious way out. We had no evidence which suggested that public opinion would support a restriction of facilities for divorce. We were impressed, too, by the fact that witnesses who would in principle have favoured this course, recognized that it would not be practicable in present circumstances to adopt it. We ourselves believe that without a radical change in the general attitude towards divorce, to abolish or restrict the scope of any of the present grounds for divorce would be bound to fail in its object of checking breakdown of marriage. > >People who were minded to get a divorce and who were prepared, if necessary, to resort to a deception to that end, would usually manage to get one. Those of us who, as we point out in paragraph 139, gravely doubt whether the introduction into England of divorce after 3 years' desertion has been a benefit to the community nevertheless realize that as things are the result if this ground were abolished would be that the less scrupulous would instead avail themselves of the ground of adultery or pretended adultery while at the same time cases of true hardship would be denied relief. That quotation offers excellent support for the proposals that I have to make in connexion with this bill. It affirms the danger of restricting the grounds of divorce now generally accepted in a community. It points to the likelihood of trickery and subterfuge to gain the same ends. By way of further illustration I wish to refer to the law relating to adultery in some continental countries. The Australian view is that if a respondent or defendant subsequently marries the person with whom adultery is committed, at least one broken marriage may be replaced by one sound marriage, but in some European countries the adulterer is, by law, not permitted to marry the co-respondent. {: .speaker-6V4} ##### Mr Daly: -- That is a cheerful approach! {: .speaker-JXI} ##### Mr FREETH: -- That is the law. The principle is that the co-respondent, having been partly responsible for breaking up one marriage, should not be allowed to benefit by making a good subsequent marriage. That is the sort of vindictive approach that we find in some countries. It is a common knowledge that, under such circumstances, arrangements are made for evidence of adultery, or presumed adultery, with another person altogether, to be made available for the purpose of divorce proceedings. To us, it seems a queer sort of morality which drives a person to an additional adultery, or to the point of pretending to commit an additional adultery, for the purpose of making a good subsequent marriage. I venture to suggest that it is only slightly less absurd to any one with an honest viewpoint to ask people who want to be freed from a hopelessly broken marriage to go through the performance of asking the other party to come back, or of approaching the court for restitution of conjugal rights. That is why I have chosen, out of the grounds that are to be denied to a number of Australian citizens by this bill, the fiveyear separation ground as a suitable compromise. As it exists in Western Australia it is an honest and decent compromise between a more restrictive divorce and the conditions which now apply in many parts of Australia. As we have said, though the ground of non-compliance is usually availed of in New South Wales, hardly one genuine attempt to get the other party to come back goes before the courts in a year. That sort of approach simply brings the law into disrepute. There is another, and perhaps more telling, illustration of the fact that grounds of divorce, in themselves, do not increase the rate of divorce. In the year 1955 there were in Western Australia 479 divorces, compared with 6,724 for the whole of Australia. That represents 7.1 per cent, of all Australian divorces. There were, in the same year, 5,145 marriages out of an Australian total of 72,172. That again represents 7.1 per cent, of the total Australian figure. This illustrates two propositions: The first is that the additional grounds of divorce available in Western Australia have had no significant effect on the divorce rate, and the second is that the legal profession of Western Australia, for which the Law Society speaks - and has protested against this bill - is not merely thinking of its pocket when it wants the five-year separation retained as a ground for divorce. Accusations to that effect have been made most recklessly and unfairly against the lawyers of Western Australia. I think that it is necessary to dispel some of the false notions about the five-year separation ground. It does not mean quick or easy divorce, nor does it mean divorce by consent. It gives effect to a principle which, as I have said, has been the guiding consideration of the highest court in England in deciding whether divorce is justified. It represents a true balance between the sanctity of marriage and the public policy consideration of not maintaining a union which has hopelessly broken down. It is a decent, clean method of divorce, particularly where children are involved, in that neither parent need be stigmatized with a matrimonial offence. That is one of the queer distortions into which our rigid ideas on divorce have forced us. If both parties to a marriage want a divorce one of them must commit a matrimonial offence in order to get it, but if both parties commit such an offence each is in danger of failing to get a divorce. Surely five years of living apart provides better evidence of a broken marriage than anything else. In many cases, where one party takes the trouble of committing a matrimonial offence, the blame for a broken marriage rests on far more obscure reasons, and is far more evenly divided. As I have said, the Western Australian provision is not necessarily divorce by consent, because one party may object. Neither is it a new ground of divorce. It has operated in many continental countries. It is an interesting historical fact that it has been in existence in one American State for 100 years. A seven-year separation - a mere difference in time - is in existence in the dominion of New Zealand as a ground of divorce. I propose later to move that a five-year separation should be taken as a ground for divorce in this country. There are adequate safeguards which, I believe, will protect innocent parties where divorce is not desired. Adultery and other major matrimonial offences, as we now regard them, are an absolute bar in Western Australia. I propose to allow the court to have a complete discretion as to whether or not a divorce should be granted on this five-year separation ground. In addition, a divorce should be refused, except for very special reasons, where a petitioner has committed adultery or another major matrimonial offence. Further, where the husband is seeking a divorce, the court must be satisfied that the wife and children are provided for, and can only allow divorce if it is satisfied on that point. It is interesting to note that separation for a seven-year term was proposed to the House of Commons as a ground of divorce in 1951. That was what prompted the United Kingdom Parliament to set up the Royal Commission on Divorce, and although that commission sat for four years its members were evenly divided in their opinions on that subject. Time does not permit me, unfortunately, to deal at length with the findings of the commission on that point, but I again stress that the members who were in favour of a separation ground felt that public policy demanded that the best evidence that a union was hopelessly broken should be a period of separation rather than the commission of a matrimonial offence. I repeat that 26 per cent, of all the divorces in Western Australia are based on this ground. The bill now before the House puts the clock back for Western Australians, New South Welshmen and South Australians to a degree that I cannot support. The other amendment that I intend to move I shall refer to briefly. It is in regard to the courts of summary jurisdiction, which have power to award maintenance. I think that as the bill is drafted there may be some doubt whether courts of summary jurisdiction in the States still retain that power, although I know that the honorable member for Balaclava intends that they should. But I propose to go further than that, because I believe that in States where courts of summary jurisdiction have power to order the separation of husband and wife for the protection of the wife, in the interests of her health or safety, it is desirable for those State courts to retain that power, and I propose to include that as an amendment. The case that comes to mind, of course, is the familiar case of a husband who comes home drunk, becomes violent and knocks his wife about. I believe that in such cases, where continued cohabitation involves a possible danger to the wife, it is desirable that the State courts which now have the power to enforce a separation should retain that power. Of course, that does not mean that I approve the archaic decree of judicial separation which is a survival from the days before divorce, as we now know it, was practicable. There are many other technical aspects of this bill which I think will require very close examination in committee. I do not think that the provisions for reconciliation are entirely satisfactory, but those are matters to which we can turn in due course. I say, in conclusion, that uniformity is only one factor. This House, after 56 years, has taken on heavy responsibilities which cannot be exercised merely in pursuit of one objective. Members have a great duty, and 1 hope that they will try to exercise it on this very vexed social question, which involves the lives, happiness and human problems of many Australians. {: #subdebate-37-0-s1 .speaker-DQF} ##### Mr SNEDDEN:
Bruce .- This bill was introduced on the motion of a private member, namely the honorable member for Balaclava **(Mr. Joske).** In the debate so far, many glowing compliments have been paid to him for his activities. I feel, however, that the House should have before it the qualifications possessed by the honorable member in this field and in other fields of the law. Therefore, I have brought with me this rather imposing collection of books, all of which have been compiled by him. The first to which I refer is entitled " The Laws of Marriage and Divorce in Australia ". I suggest to the House that there is not a law office in Australia which has not this book in its library. Indeed, any library that pretended to be a library in the real sense and did not possess it would be sadly lacking. It is regarded as the leading authority on matrimonial causes in Australia. Another book of which the honorable member for Balaclava is the author is " Butterworth's Annotation of Victorian Statutes ". There is not a law office or a barrister's chambers in Victoria that does not possess this excellent annotation of the whole range of the statutes of the Victorian Parliament. There is another important book of which the honorable member for Balaclava is the author. It is called " Law and Procedure at Meetings ". It might well be made compulsory reading for some of our friends on the other side of the chamber. This book is to be found in the possession of all persons who regard: themselves as authorities on meetings. Another is entitled " Insurance Law in Australia". It is a very valuable book, which appears in most law libraries. Others are the " The Remuneration of Commission Agents in Australia " and " The Sale of Goods in Australia ". Authorship of these books points quite obviously to a man who is very erudite in the law, whose reputation throughout Australia is extraordinarily high, and properly so. The author of the bill was admitted to the Victorian Bar in 1917, and he took silk in 1944. Besides engaging in the activities that I have outlined, the honorable member for Balaclava was editor of the " Victorian Law Reports " for a period of twenty years, until either late last year or early this year. Any honorable member who has had cause to look at those law reports has recognized their quality and accurate reporting. The bill deals with the established institution in our way of life, the institution of divorce. It has existed in its modern form for 100 years. Many of the States that have legislated on divorce adopted their legislation from the British model, and in many respects it is now archaic. There has been no general reform in Australia in any way comparable to the general reform initiated by **Sir Alan** Herbert in England in the 1930's. It is therefore necessary, I suggest, that uniform divorce laws for this Commonwealth be brought about. The social consequences of divorce are so great that it is imperative that any legislation on this matter be bold and forthright. I suggest that the bill has these qualities. I think, as the Minister for Air **(Mr. Osborne)** pointed out to-day, that there are two questions to be asked in relation to the bill. The first is: Is there any need for uniformity? Only after that question is asked can one ask oneself about the grounds for divorce. Australia covers a tremendous area and comprises six States. Freedom of movement between the States is, by our Constitution, specifically declared to be absolutely free. The High Court has been very vigilant to ensure that that provision of the Constitution is maintained. Indeed, since the war and the advent of air travel, there has been a great deal of freedom of movement between the States. If there is no uniform divorce law in Australia there will continue to be a great limitation of relief because of the legal concept of domicile. Domicile is peculiarly a legal concept. A person may approach a State Supreme Court and suggest that he should be entitled, on proving the grounds that he alleges, to matrimonial relief. In many cases the State Supreme Court finds itself unable to afford the relief asked for, because the person seeking that relief has not domicile in that State. This bill seeks to create a single Australian domicile, so that it will not matter where a petitioner lives in Australia at the time he presents his petition, or where he lived within Australia in the past. When I use the pronoun " he " in that connexion the pronoun " she " is also to be understood. The petitioner will be entitled to seek relief, and, if he proves the grounds on which he is proceeding, he is entitled to have that relief. There is a small, but very necessary, saving clause in the bill regarding the transference of proceedings. If proceedings have been started in one part of the Commonwealth and it is proved to the court in another part of the Commonwealth that they ought properly to proceed in that other part, the proceedings can be transferred and the cause continued without interruption. Two questions that ought to be asked are: Why should it be simpler to obtain a divorce in some States than it is in other States? Why should the grounds in some States differ from those in others? No reasonable argument can be adduced to justify either proposition as a correct proposition. This is a single nation, federated in the concept of a developing Australia. We are a people who speak the same language in all parts of our country, with the same accent. There is no difference in our way of life as between States and there is, of course, very little difference in our basic wages. There is no specific thing which differentiates a Western Australian from a South Australian, a Queenslander from a Tasmanian. Unless divorce law in this country is made uniform it is possible that, in the future, competition could develop between States to attract divorcees, similar to the competition between various States of the United States of America in that respect. That would be a most undesirable thing for the dignity of Australia and the sanctity of the home. This bill goes into wide fields. It seeks to correct, by recognition of divorces within the British Commonwealth, the very grave anomalies that at present exist, an outstanding example of which was afforded recently by a most extraordinary case which came before the Supreme Court of Victoria - most extraordinary in its outcome, but not in the circumstances that preceded it. A gentleman went to England before the last war and there contracted a marriage. He and his wife separated, the wife staying in England and the husband returning to Australia. Subsequently, the wife in England divorced the husband, then in Australia. The husband naturally regarded himself as free to contract another marriage and, in fact, he did contract another marriage in Australia. Subsequent to that date, while still in Australia, he wished to divorce his second wife. He petitioned the Victorian Supreme Court for divorce and proved the grounds on which he based his case. But it was then found that he could not receive relief, because the Supreme Court of Victoria decided that the marriage that he sought to dissolve had never validly existed. The court decided that the original marriage in England still subsisted, despite the fact that the wife in England, who obtained a divorce, was free to re-marry. That man is now left in the extraordinary situation that he is both married and unmarried. This bill seeks to correct that anomaly; it will recognize as valid, in Australia, any divorce granted anywhere in the British Commonwealth. The bill deals also with the historic disadvantage of the wife. I suggest that this historic disadvantage will be largely corrected by the passage of this measure, because the measure will create Australian domicile. The effect of the definition of a " married person domiciled in Australia ", in clause 5, is that a wife may institute proceedings for divorce if she has been resident in Australia for a period of three years immediately preceding the lodging of the petition, regardless of the legal concept of domicile during that period. This is a most important provision in its effect on immigrants. With the growing number of immigrants in this country, and with our immigration programme still proceeding, it is very necessary to have such a humane provision. As regards the relief of the historic disadvantage of the wife, it is a fact that in Victoria to-day, and until this bill is passed, a husband in that State may commit one act of adultery without the risk of his wife bringing divorce proceedings against him, the Only exception being if that act of adultery Occurs in the matrimonial home. Whereas one act of adultery by the wife would justify proceedings by the husband, it requires two acts of adultery by the husband to justify proceedings by the wife. The provision in the Victorian legislation dealt with repeated commissions of adultery on the part of the husband, and it is only as a result of interpretation by the courts that the number has been reduced to two. The intention of the bill, as stated by the honorable member for Balaclava, is to bring about uniformity of divorce law only. Therefore, the grounds for divorce included in the measure are those which have received common acceptance in the States, or as near to common acceptance as is reasonably possible. The honorable member for Balaclava said - >I have said that those grounds have been accepted in all or in most of the States. Three of them - adultery, three years' desertion and unnatural offences by a man - have been accepted in all the States. Three others - habitual drunkenness, insanity and frequent convictions - have been accepted in five of the States. The ground of repeated assault and cruel beatings has been accepted in four of the States, although in one State the term used is somewhat different. In three of the States, the ground of presumption of death has been accepted. That ground, which is non-contentious, has been accepted also in New Zealand and in England. Therefore, in drawing up a bill to give Australia uniform divorce law, the author of the legislation has inserted those grounds which have gained common acceptance. With uniformity, pressure for liberalization or tightening of the law in respect of grounds for divorce will be directed to one quarter only, an incidental fact which is most important to the concept of unity of divorce law. Gain or loss of grounds in individual States as a result of this measure is only incidental, and cannot be justifiable cause for criticism of the bill. If there are any grounds that honorable members want to include in the legislation, or delete from it, I earnestly urge them to disregard that until the bill is on the statute-book and uniform divorce law has been established. This Parliament has, since federation, possessed the power expressed in this bill, and I submit that it is the duty of the Parliament to exercise that power. Now, concerning the maintenance of wives and children, the bill adopts a very wise course in vesting power in the divorce court, without limiting it, to enable a wife to seek an order when State summary jurisdiction will not give her relief. There are many wives in Australia who have no order for maintenance, and cannot obtain one, because the jurisdiction of summary courts in the States does not encompass that. The provision giving power to the court, without limiting unnecessarily the ground upon which it can be exercised, can have the very real result of permitting some great justice to the many married women in Australia. But, at the same time, there has been no attempt, nor, I suggest to the House ought there to have been, to abolish the summary jurisdiction of the States. A not unimportant factor of this bill relates to children. I refer to clause 34 of the bill. The honorable member for Wilmot **(Mr. Duthie)** this afternoon made a comment with which I profoundly disagree. He said that this was a legal bill and had no warmth of humanity. I suggest that if he had read clause 34, he would have found therein some warm humanity. It reads - >A decree of nullity under this Act of a voidable marriage annuls the marriage as from the date of the decree absolute and does not render illegitimate a child of the parents born since, or legitimated during, the marriage. That is a most humane clause to include in a bill of this nature. Another provision which may be strange to people in some States is the automatic decree absolute provision. I suggest to the House that this is a most wise provision. A spouse may have been served with papers claiming a divorce and have heard that the matter had been before the court. He, or she, may have read in the papers that a divorce had been granted to the other spouse. It is not unreasonable for such a person to assume that the divorce has been made absolute and that he or she has been freed from the responsibility and obligation of marriage and is at liberty to contract another marriage. If such persons do not check and find whether the decree has been made absolute, they may well commit bigamy; and if they commit bigamy, the processes of the criminal law will catch up with them. They may be required to plead and may be convicted and gaoled. Another not unreal consideration is that if they do contract a second bigamous marriage, that marriage is void ab initio and at present any children born to that union would be illegitimate. It was suggested by the Minister for Supply **(Mr. Beale)** to-day that perhaps it would be wise to have a discretion in a judge to shorten the decree to cover obvious compassionate cases. That is probably a reasonable request, but I say to the House quite frankly that at this stage I am anxious to see this bill passed through all its stages and become law. It is then conceivable that there could be some amendments of that type, because it is expressly stated in the bill that it is not to come into operation until 1st January, 1959. It has also been suggested that this automatic decree absolute clause will necessarily prevent appeals to the Privy Council. Appeals to the Privy Council in divorce matters are extremely rare. I doubt whether there would be more than one in five years. In fact, I think it is more likely that there has been only one in the post-war years. There is no provision in this bill for judicial separation. I think that within the framework and intent of this bill it is necessary that that provision be abandoned. This bill emphasizes reconciliation, and any declaration of separation, whether it be judicial separation by a superior court or separation ordered by a summary court, keeps the parties to a marriage apart, but at the same time preserves the fiction of marriage and must necessarily weaken the dignity of marriage. The bill, therefore, does not provide for separation, and I think properly so. Some specific criticisms have been levelled against this bill during the debate. This afternoon, the Minister for Supply criticized the bill because it omitted as a ground for divorce the failure to restore conjugal rights after 21 days. In the course of his argument he admitted - and it is a well-known fact - that many cases are colluded and in many cases perjury is committed. He produced to the House some figures which he suggested supported his argument for the introduction of this ground. He said that 675 petitions claiming restitution of conjugal rights had been served and that out of that number only 405 had been granted, leaving 270. He said that from those figures we must conclude that 270 people who instituted a petition for restoration of conjugal rights had been reconciled. I think that statement displays a most extraordinary lack of logic. There could be any number of reasons why those 270 persons did not pursue their petitions, and I suggest that one of the very real ones that would account for a great number not doing so was that they became concerned that their collusion or perjury might be discovered, and, therefore, they decided not to pursue the matter. Of course, nobody can reasonably assert that 21 days is sufficient time in which to attempt a real reconciliation. The Minister then went on to recommend that a compromise of twelve months should be considered. Whether or not that is sound is a matter on which the House will have to make up its mind; but I earnestly suggest that it delay consideration of that point to a much later date. The Minister for Supply also criticized another ground and he used the word " brutal ". He said it was brutal to ask a wife to put up with a drunken or cruel husband for three years. Of course, the bill does not provide for that; it does not ask her to put up with him. This ground is included as a relief for those wives who do in fact put up with it in the hope of reforming their husbands or because of their regard for the children of the marriage. It is necessary to have this ground so that at the conclusion of the three-year period a wife does not find herself in the position of having to wait another three years for a divorce on the ground of desertion or having to wait for the commission of another matrimonial offence in order that she can gain the relief that the bill provides. Clause 26 of the bill specifically provides her with the right, if she has been cruelly treated, or the husband is an habitual drunkard, or any other lesser ground, provided that it is a real ground, to leave her husband, and the husband would then become the guilty party. Clause 26 reads - >A married person whose conduct constitutes just cause or excuse for the other party to the marriage to live separately or apart, and occasions that other party to live separately or apart, is guilty of wilful desertion without just cause or excuse. I am pleased that the honorable member for Macquarie **(Mr. Luchetti)** is in the chamber. He spoke to-day, obviously very sincerely, on the matter of insanity as a ground for divorce. He suggested that insanity as a ground for divorce was quite objectionable. The clause in the bill relating to insanity provides that before a divorce can be granted on the ground of insanity, the spouse against whom the action is brought must have been receiving treatment in an institution for five out of the six years immediately preceding the institution of the proceedings; and furthermore, it is incumbent upon the spouse petitioning to prove to the satisfaction of the court that the spouse who is allegedly insane is unlikely to recover. It therefore necessitates the petitioner bringing before the court very sound medical evidence that the husband or the wife, whichever it be, is unlikely to recover. I emphasize that the spouse who is being sued for divorce must have been in an institution for five years out of the six immediately preceding the institution of the proceedings. This is a ground which is accepted in five of the six States. A very important point is that for this ground to succeed there must be no chance of the parties resuming matrimonial relations. The honorable member for Forrest **(Mr. Freeth)** indicated that he proposes to move an amendment at the committee stage, to provide that separation for five years shall be a ground for divorce. He stated frankly - and it is true - that no matrimonial offence need be committed for the granting of a divorce on the basis of a separation of five years. At the present time, in Western Australia, and, I believe, in South Australia, where this ground is available, adultery by the petitioning spouse is an absolute bar to the granting of relief. It is incumbent upon the petitioning spouse to satisfy the court that he or she has not committed adultery. If adultery has been committed by the petitioner, the court cannot grant relief. If ever there was an invitation to perjury, I suggest that that ground provides it. Remarkably enough, the honorable member for Forrest objects to the ground available in New South Wales for non-compliance with an order for restitution of conjugal rights within 21 days, and he alleges that it provides an invitation to perjury. The ground of separation for five years is equally as much an invitation to perjury. There is provision in the bill that, if the parties are living apart, one party can indicate to the other that he or she wishes the other to return. If the request is bona fide, that other party must return. If he or she does not return, desertion begins. Those who wish separation for a period of five years to be a ground for divorce take the attitude that there is a danger that the party requested to return to the matrimonial home will return. The very purpose of this bill is to effect reconciliation. It is desirable that, if a party is requested to return, that party should do so. The ground of separation for five years would completely negative reconciliation. The honorable member for Forrest stated that the number of divorces is not influenced by the number of grounds for divorce available, and that is true. The reason why the ground of separation for five years is so popular that it is adopted in 26 per cent, of cases is that it does not facilitate the washing of dirty linen. The Minister for Air made a very fine speech. He had one reservation - that a wife should be placed on the same basis as a husband with respect to drunkenness, with an allied fault. With respect to a wife, the allied fault is neglect of domestic duties. With respect to a husband, it is cruelty or failure to maintain. It is quite true, **Mr. Acting Deputy Speaker,** that, upon proof of drunkenness, the courts readily infer against a husband cruelty or failure to maintain. The Minister for Supply objected to the idea of a judge stepping down from the bench, as it were, to conciliate. I suggest that that is a wellestablished principle in custody matters in the divorce jurisdiction throughout Australia. Only last year, a similar principle was embodied in the conciliation and arbitration legislation in order to enable an arbitrator to step down and conciliate, if there was a chance of success. The honorable member for Wilmot **(Mr. Duthie)** said that this bill was not humanitarian. I hope that I have adequately pointed to its warm humanity in that it places a woman as nearly as possible in a position of equality with her husband, and removes the disadvantages under which, historically, women have suffered. As to the amendment proposed by the honorable member for Werriwa **(Mr. Whitlam),** matrimonial causes legislation is the business of this Parliament. It has been investigated for 56 years, and, recently, by a committee of which the honorable member for Balaclava, who sponsored this bill, was a member. I suggest that it is the business of the Parliament to determine these matters itself. {: #subdebate-37-0-s2 .speaker-10000} ##### Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER:
Mr. Lawrence -- Order! The honorable member's time has expired. {: #subdebate-37-0-s3 .speaker-L19} ##### Mr LESLIE:
Moore .- I make no apology for taking up the time of the House on this subject, which deals with the highest principles with which this House has ever dealt. This bill takes us into a far higher field than any other matters have done - :and I exclude none - because we are now dealing with high moral values. The honorable member for Bruce **(Mr. Snedden)** displayed the large legal volumes produced by the honorable member for Balaclava **(Mr. Joske),** who is an eminent and learned lawyer. That display did not over-awe me in the least, although I have the greatest respect for the honorable member for Balaclava. Nor am I overawed by the fact that, so far, this debate has been conducted mainly by members of the legal fraternity. This is not a measure for legal argument. It may be so when it somes to the crossing of every " t ", and the dotting of every " i ", during the consideration of specific clauses at the committee stage. The theme of this debate is a matter of the highest moral value, because it deals with the very foundation of our Christian civilization. We are dealing with the very basis of the Christian system of family life, and what we do in relation to this measure could harm very substantially, or even wreck, the whole basis of our system of Christian living. To me at least, marriage is sacred. I believe that it has contributed more to the maintenance of decency in our society than has anything else, and the House should try to ensure that the marriage tie shall be strengthened, and honoured as it should be honoured. I do not say this lightly or facetiously. Marriage is the biggest event in a person's life. We have no control over our birth or our death, but we have the right of free choice in making a marriage that shall govern the major portion of our lives; in choosing a mate with whom we may live in harmony as the Creator intended, and in bringing up a family in a happy Christian tradition. lt is for that reason that I regret having seen in the press reports that, at some stage, this measure will become either a government bill or a government-sponsored bill, and thereby be taken into the field of party politics. I say now that such a procedure would be only one step removed from dictation by government and party as to how we shall conduct Christian worship, and what faith we shall belong to. This subject is closely linked with Christian worship. We should not allow it to become the subject of dictation by government and party. {: .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr Whitlam: -- The Constitution will not allow it. {: .speaker-L19} ##### Mr LESLIE: -- I am stating my position with a clear conscience. I say unequivocally that, if this becomes a government bill, I for one shall not support it, because I refuse to be dictated to in a matter such as this. {: .speaker-JWX} ##### Mr J R FRASER:
ALP -- The honorable member can vote against it if he likes. {: .speaker-L19} ##### Mr LESLIE: -- I know that. However, my present intention is to vote for it, because I should like to see divorce laws made uniform. The Parliament and the people should be given an opportunity to bring about uniform divorce laws in the Commonwealth of Australia, but I do not believe that this objective should be achieved at all costs and by sacrifices that are altogether too great. Nor do I agree that this matter is one for a select committee. If I agreed that it was purely a question of legal technicalities, I should accept the proposition put forward by the honorable member for Werriwa **(Mr. Whitlam),** but I do not agree that only legalities are involved. I do not attach any discredit to members of the Labour party nor suggest that they have made this a party matter; and, I repeat, if it was purely one of legal technicalities I should accept the suggestion that it go to a select committee. Also, I should not be averse, after the House has arrived at a decision and formulated ground laws, as they might be called, for a uniform divorce measure, to have the question then examined by a select committee to determine what should or should not finally be incorporated in a bill. Nevertheless, this is a matter for everyone's own conscience; it is not a legal matter. I cannot repeat too often that this topic is in a field difficult to describe but definitely not within the ambit of any of the laws that we usually discuss in this chamber. I believe that there can be justification for divorce, in circumstances that 1 do not propose to traverse at this stage. At the same time, I believe that it is the fundamental responsibility of this and all other Parliaments and of all persons who have leading and influential positions in the community to do their utmost to strengthen and stabilize our marriage laws. Marriage is the biggest thing in any one's life. Unfortunately, the number of divorces is regrettably large. Too many people enter marriage with a feeling that if it does not work they can call it off. {: .speaker-2V4} ##### Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP -- Nonsense! {: .speaker-L19} ##### Mr LESLIE: -- That happens, make no mistake about it. Easy divorce is preceded by easy marriage. Marriage has one purpose, but 1 am afraid that many persons who contemplate marriage do not look to the future, as they should do. With them it is a matter of the moment only. {: .speaker-2V4} ##### Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP -- The honorable member should speak for himself. {: .speaker-L19} ##### Mr LESLIE: -- 1 am speaking for myself, and I believe that every honorable member in this chamber during this debate must speak for himself. As well, I am speaking from my personal knowledge and my personal experience of people. I say that too many persons who enter marriage see only the moment or a few years ahead. They are conscious of the glamour, or whatever one likes to call it, associated with marriage; but they do not look ahead. They make no attempt to visualize what sort of a partner the spouse they are taking will be in 20, 30 or 40 years' time. Those are important considerations that make for the sanctity and the success of marriage. It is important that people should think of how they will rear a family and live together in the years ahead. The overwhelming proportion of child delinquents who appear in the children's courts are children of broken marriages. The honorable member for Hindmarsh is laughing and making a joke of this matter, but I assure the House that from my personal knowledge of him, though he is acting the goat, he is not sincere in his role. I know that in his heart he looks upon these aspects of life with a seriousness that possibly he does not show in other matters. It is the duty of all honorable members to look not at the purely legal aspects, and ways to make marriage easy of dissolution, but at ways in which they can make marriage stable and family life secure. {: .speaker-2V4} ##### Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP -- How would the honorable member do that? {: .speaker-L19} ##### Mr LESLIE: -- I suggest that the honorable member join with me in attempting to find ways of doing it. I have not the answers, and 1 do not think anybody else has them; the matter must be gone into most carefully. A select committee would be a body of legal experts who, like the honorable member for Werriwa, would concentrate on legal aspects. Marriage has been made a purely legal thing, a matter of contract as between buyer and seller. Its status has, undeservedly, been lowered. Judging from the discussion that has taken place among honorable members of this chamber who belong to the legal profession, marriage would seem to be solely a legal contract between two parties; and their suggestion is that if the contract is not satisfactory to one party he or she should be able, under certain conditions, to break it. Marriage is not solely a legal transaction. As the honorable member for Macquarie said this afternoon, marriage is a sacred acceptance of an obligation. Two people marry for better or for worse, for richer or for poorer. Marriage is the acceptance of solemn vows; a promise made before God Almighty. One of those vows is that the married persons shall stay together in sickness and in health. I agree with the objections raised by the honorable member for Macquarie to the proposal to permit divorce on the grounds of insanity of one of the parties to a marriage. Some people, through no fault of their own, are incurably afflicted physically in a manner that makes them unable to live with a spouse. If the spouse of an insane person is entitled to a divorce, is not the spouse of a person who is permanently physically disabled for performing the natural functions of marriage also entitled to a divorce? These are the sort of things that must be considered. My appeal to this House is that honorable members should not look on marriage as being solely a legal contract. Let us accept it first of all as a religious vow made before Almighty God by two persons who swear that they will live in a certain way together. Only in exceptional circumstances, when the welfare of the parties is affected and something has arisen that could not possibly have been expected when the vow was made, can there be justification for means of breaking it. Such means should not be in respect of breaking a contract, because marriage is not solely a legal contract. So long as it is so regarded, so long will people enter marriage without giving thought to the years that lie ahead, without thought to the family that they may have. So many children to-day are being brought up in institutions because their parents did not think enough before marriage. I ask honorable members in all sincerity to vote for the second reading of the bill. Let us then discuss in committee what it shall contain. Also, let us reserve to ourselves the right to decide what the ultimate composition of the bill will be after the committee has dealt with it. If we are to deal with the measure solely on legal grounds, as it has been dealt with up till now, we shall achieve nothing worthwhile for this country which we have always claimed is based upon strong Christian principles. [Sitting suspended from 11.10 to 11.40 p.m.] {: #subdebate-37-0-s4 .speaker-4U4} ##### Mr KILLEN:
Moreton .- I do not propose to speak at any great length to this bill, nor do I propose to dwell upon the technical and legal aspects of it. They have already been adequately canvassed by a number of people infinitely more qualified to deal with such matters than I am. For example, the House listened this evening to what I regarded as a brilliant exposition by the honorable member for Bruce **(Mr. Snedden).** I thought that by his approach to the problem, he revealed a thorough understanding of the subject with which he was dealing, and that he dealt with those matters in an admirable and logical manner. What 1 propose to do is to direct my thoughts to the principles which underlie this bill. I shall refer to some aspects of divorce as I see them, as a layman. 1 shall also refer to the institution of marriage, as I see it, again as a layman. Divorce is something which quite clearly touches the family, and I believe that anything which touches the family, as the honorable member for Moore **(Mr. Leslie)** pointed out this evening, touches something in our society which is of great importance. In my judgment, it is something which should be approached with great delicacy, and with the utmost sensitivity. One of the complaints that I would have about marriage - and I hope this statement will not be construed in any jocular fashion - is that it is too easy to contract into, and I believe that many people in our community to-day are possessed of the idea that they should be able to contract out of it with the same degree of ease as they contracted into it. That brings me to the point that the House is dealing with legislation relating to the unification or codification of divorce laws, and I am prompted to suggest that there may be some merit in the House, at some time in the future, directing its attention to the formulation of a common statute upon the laws relating to marriage. I think there would be some virtue in that. We have conflict to-day among the States relating to divorce, and similarly, we have conflict and confusion relating to the actual laws of marriage. I am one of those who take what may possibly be regarded by some people as the quaint and old-fashioned view in not regarding marriage as solely a secular institution. That is my view. It is not something that I endeavour to foist on other people. I should like to refer to a small booklet written by a churchman with a name which, I am sure, will command the respect of all honorable members - the Archbishop of Canterbury. The booklet is " Problems of Marriage and Divorce ". This is the opening paragraph - >The institution of marriage always has presented, and always will present, vastly complicated and difficult problems to both Church and State, for it involves so many different aspects of human life. It is first of all a deeply personal matter, but at the same time one which closely affects social well-being; it is productive of many moral problems and is involved in many legal complexities; and through it all religious principles of high importance are at stake. Entering so profoundly into the personal, religious, and social life of man marriage cannot but present problems of acute concern and of immense complexity. I think every honorable member in the House, including my friend the honorable member for Hindmarsh **(Mr. Clyde Cameron),** who is interjecting, will agree that it is a complex issue. I turn now to the bill itself. As I mentioned before, it strives to secure uniformity, it strives to reduce to a formula the various divorce laws throughout Australia. It seeks to wipe out the complexities and to reduce the aggregate of 30 grounds for divorce to eight. I do not propose to refer to the grounds for divorce as such. As I said before, they are something on which I think every man must form his own judgment. They also present a great challenge to the mind so far as technicalities are concerned and that, of course, immediately presents to the layman problems of great magnitude. We have at least six statutes throughout the Commonwealth relating to divorce. If we do not make an attempt now to resolve the differences between the various State laws dealing with divorce, I wonder whether the problems will tend to increase as time goes on? Let us assume that for some reason or other the House rejects this bill. Let us assume again that ten years hence the Commonwealth Parliament directs its attention once more to the matter of uniform divorce laws. It may well be that in the interval some of the States will alter, add to or modify in some form or another the various grounds for divorce. I believe that is one of the compelling reasons why this House should face up to and promptly deal with the problem of attempting to reduce the difficulties which the future could present. I believe this bill is a very genuine, very conservative and estimable attempt to resolve the complexities existing between and among the States of the Commonwealth of Australia. When I looked at it first, one of the questions that came to my mind was: Does the bill set out to make divorce easy? Does it set out to try to put on the statute-book of this country legislation whereby an individual, or a party to a marriage, can simply walk into an office, make application and have the marriage dissolved? I found that, far from attempting to do what I may describe as Reno-izing divorce, this bill sets out to reduce, in a conservative fashion, the grounds upon which divorce can be secured. The bill strives for uniformity, and I believe that if it is agreed to, it will secure uniformity. Yet it also seeks to establish reconciliation as a lively, useful means of restoring domestic harmony. I know that some honorable members may disagree with my view, but I do not believe in easy divorce. As I said at the opening of my remarks, I believe that the family is the fundamental unit of our society. If we impose upon future generations legislation whereby we tend to destroy the solemnity of marriage in the first place and whereby we demonstrate, in the second place, that we do not really hold the institution of the family very highly, then I believe we shall strike a fundamental blow against the whole edifice of our society. The British royal commission on divorce has been referred to frequently in this debate, and I trust that the House will be patient if I read one or two conclusions reached by some of the members of that commission. Dealing with the matter of what the commission described as the easy way out of marriage, those members had this to say - >We believe that the consequences of providing the " easy way out " afforded by divorce by consent would be disastrous to stability in marriage. The inevitable result would be the granting of divorces in cases where no real necessity for the remedy had arisen. > >In other words, the divorce rate would be swollen by the failure of marriages which would otherwise have held together with advantage to both parties as well as to children. People would then come to look upon marriage less and less as a life-long union and more and more as one to be ended if things begin to go wrong, and there would be a very real risk that in the end widespread divorce would come to be an accepted feature of our society. As those attitudes spread they would undermine, and ultimately destroy, the concept of life-long marriage. I believe that that is a view that would, in the first place, be instantly respected by all honorable members of this House and, I believe, it would be subscribed to in the majority of cases. Another point was expressed by His Grace, the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury, in evidence before the royal commission. The evidence was - >Where little, if any, check is placed by social condemnation upon the easy exchange of one partner for another, it is difficult to exaggerate the degree of family instability that will in the end result. Where the marriage bond is recognized as permanent, self-discipline is more easily imposed, tolerance more easily granted, and harmony and companionship more patiently sought. The indissolubility of marriage is for most people their best protection against their own indiscipline and selfishness - an invaluable assistance towards the attainment of marriage happiness. Further - >Easy divorce, however, fosters the innate lawlessness of human affections. It adds power to temptations to infidelity by holding out the possibility of combining a gratification of desire with respectability. It weakens any incentive to forgive infidelity, and prompts rather the grasping of any opportunity offered for release from obligations felt to be irksome. The seed-thought of divorce and escape may quickly poison the mind and paralyze the will to find a way through the disappointment and difficulties. A number of honorable members participating in this debate have referred to some statistics of divorce. I do not wish to weary the House but I would be grateful if the House would bear with me while I cite a few of the statistics of this country, the United States of America, and the United Kingdom because I believe these figures present some indication of what I may describe as the wreckage in human lives. Every one of these figures, quite apart from being a numeral, statistic to be put in a statistician's year book or the like, represents a human problem, a human conflict. It represents unhappiness, and in the vast majority of cases it represents disappointment and upset for the children of the marriage. Let me take the years 1945 to 1951. In those years in Australia there were 54,553 divorces. In the United States in the same years there were 3,413,000 divorces. I cannot present a graph to the House, but the rise and fall of those figures may give an indication. From the year 1871 up to the year 1921 the proportion of divorces per 10,000 marriages was as follows: - In the United Kingdom in the year 1871, there were 190,000 marriages and 171 divorces. In 1920 there were 379,000 marriages and 3,090 divorces. In 1951 there were 344,000 marriages and 30,000 divorces. These figures show that there is a tendency within western civilized society for the rate of divorce to increase and 1 believe that one can draw two conclusions. In the first place one can come to the conclusion that the stigma which was at one time associated with divorce has decreased in its significance. Secondly, I believe that one can come to the conclusion that with the increase in the grounds for divorce, or the easing of grounds for divorce, the rate has increased. I believe that the responsibility of this House is perfectly clear. If this House legislates upon divorce, as I believe it intends to, it should combine caution with realism. It should combine delicacy with demonstrable evidence of a real regard for the sanctity of marriage. I repeat that I am one who does not regard the institution of marriage as being purely a secular institution. I believe it is an institution that has a conscionable spiritual significance, and I believe that every member of this House has a responsibility resting on his shoulders to face up to the fact that hundreds of thousands of people throughout Australia take the same point of view. That leaves very little further for me to add, but it would be most ungracious on my part if I sat down without paying a tribute to the author of this bill. Many tributes have been paid to him already during the course of the debate on this legislation. I would like to say to the honorable member for Balaclava **(Mr. Joske)** that this bill reflects not only great industry on his part, but also skill and patience. I believe that it is realistic. I believe that it is conservative, and I believe again it is modest in its character and in its charter. But beyond all that I believe that the bill demonstrates readily and clearly that the author has a profound and lively understanding of human convictions and beyond that again, a great understanding of human problems and of human ideals. Thursday, 23 May 1957 Question put - >That the words proposed to be omitted **(Mr. Whitlam's amendment)** stand part of the question. The House divided. (Mr. Acting Deputy Speaker - Mr, W. R. Lawrence.) AYES: 55 NOES: 29 Majority . . . . 26 AYES NOES Question so resolved in the affirmative. Amendment negatived. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time and committed pro forma; progress reported. {: .page-start } page 1883 {:#debate-38} ### SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT {: #debate-38-s0 .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr HAROLD HOLT:
Leader of the House · HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP -- I move That the House, at its rising, adjourn until a date and hour to be fixed by **Mr. Speaker,** which time of meeting shall be notified by **Mr. Speaker** to each member by telegram or letter. For the convenience of honorable members, I wish to indicate that the intention of the Government is to have Parliament resume on Tuesday, 27th August, and to present the budget on 28th August. Question resolved in the affirmative. {: .page-start } page 1883 {:#debate-39} ### LEAVE OF ABSENCE TO ALL MEMBERS Motion (by **Mr. Harold** Holt) agreed to - >That leave of absence be given to every member of theHouse of Representatives from the determination of this sitting of the House to the date of its next sitting. {: .page-start } page 1883 {:#debate-40} ### ADJOURNMENT Motion (by **Mr. Harold** Holt) proposed- >That the House do now adjourn. Several honorablemembers rising in their places, Motion (by **Mr. Harold** Holt) put - >That 'the question be now put. The House divided. (Mr. Speaker - Hon. John McLeay.) AYES: 56 NOES: 29 Majority . . . . 27 AYES NOES Question so resolved in the affirmative. Original question resolved in the affirmative. House adjourned at 12.11 a.m. (Thursday) to a date and hour to be fixed by **Mr. Speaker.** {: .page-start } page 1884 {:#debate-41} ### ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS The following answers to questions were circulated: - Nuclear Bomb Tests. {:#subdebate-41-0} #### Prime Minister's Tour {: #subdebate-41-0-s0 .speaker-KX7} ##### Mr Ward: d asked the Prime Minister, upon notice - >What are the names and the particular duties performed by each person who accompanied him on his recent tour? {: #subdebate-41-0-s1 .speaker-F4T} ##### Sir Arthur Fadden:
CP -- The Prime Minister has replied as follows: - >The officials who accompanied me were - Miss H. Craig, M.B.E., Private Secretary; **Mr. H.** Dash, Press Secretary; **Sir Allen** Brown, C.B.E., Secretary of the Prime Minister's Department; **Mr. J.** Plimsoll, C.B.E., Assistant Secretary, Department of External Affairs; **Mr. J.** H. Scholtens, Prime Minister's Department, secretary to the party. {:#subdebate-41-1} #### Chinese Classical Theatre Company {: #subdebate-41-1-s0 .speaker-KX7} ##### Mr Ward: d asked the Prime Minister, upon notice - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Was the Government's decision to prevent the Chinese Classical Theatre Company performing in Melbourne during the Olympic Games based on advice received from the Commonwealth Security Service? 1. If not, was the action taken on the initiative of the Prime Minister? 2. Has this act proved to be unnecessary and a bad advertisement for this country in its contrast with the marvellous impression created by the praiseworthy impartiality of the great Australian crowds at the Olympic Games who applauded champions regardless of their country of origin? {: #subdebate-41-1-s1 .speaker-F4T} ##### Sir Arthur Fadden:
CP -- The Prime Minister has replied as follows: - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Before arriving at a decision about the Chinese Classical Theatre Company, the Government took into account all the information available, including a request by the Olympic authorities that as far as possible during the period of the Olympic Games all dramatic entertainment should contribute to the Olympic Fine Arts Festival, and should be Australian in origin. 1. See No. 1 above. 2. No. {:#subdebate-41-2} #### Security Service Reports {: #subdebate-41-2-s0 .speaker-1V4} ##### Mr Cairns:
YARRA, VICTORIA s asked the Prime Minister, upon notice - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Are any reports made by the Commonwealth Security Service on any (a) applicants for appointment to, or promotion in, Commonwealth government departments, (b) applicants for migration to Australia, or (c) applicants for naturalization? 1. When judging character and suitability of any of these applicants, is it considered relevant that such reports be obtained or considered? 2. Apart from such reports, are any inquiries made of applicants which could be considered as inquiries likely to explore their political opinions? {: #subdebate-41-2-s1 .speaker-F4T} ##### Sir Arthur Fadden:
CP -- The Prime Minister has replied as follows: - 1 to 3. These questions are substantially the same as those which I answered for the honorable member on 9th April. I refer him to the answers I gave on that occasion. {:#subdebate-41-3} #### Mr. Vladimir Petrov {: #subdebate-41-3-s0 .speaker-KX7} ##### Mr Ward: d asked the Prime Minister, upon notice - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Is Vladimir Petrov, or his wife, still in the employ of the Commonwealth? 1. If so, what is the nature of their duties? 2. What salary, bonus, or allowance are they receiving? 3. Are they still being maintained by the Commonwealth, including the provision of a residence and security guards? 4. Will he have prepared a statement of the annual cost, and the total cost to date, in maintaining these two persons, showing the various heads of expenditure separately, and including all moneys paid to them by way of grant, salary, allowances, bonus, &c? 5. Are Vladimir Petrov and his wife to be a permanent charge upon the Australian community; if not, when will the present arrangement terminate? {: #subdebate-41-3-s1 .speaker-F4T} ##### Sir Arthur Fadden:
CP -- The Prime Minister has replied as follows: - >I remind the honorable member - if he wishes to be reminded - that I answered for him an almost identical question on 24th October last year. However, I have no objection to repeating the information. As to questions 1 and 2, I have more than once told the honorable member that **Mr. and Mrs. Petrov** are engaged in supplying information which is most valuable, not only to Australia but to the whole of the free world. As to question 3, I say again that neither **Mr. nor Mrs. Petrov** is paid any wage or salary. **Mr. Petrov** is not being paid any living or expense allowance, but **Mrs. Petrov** is paid an expense allowance. With regard to question 4, at the present time **Mr. and Mrs. Petrov** are making efforts to establish themselves as citizens in this country and to stand on their own feet. These persistent questions and their attendant publicity can only retard these efforts. I do not propose to answer any questions relating to the guarding of the Petrovs. As to question 5, I have more than once told the honorable member that it would have been impossible to set up a costing system to provide the information desired, because the costs associated with the maintenance of **Mr. and Mrs. Petrov** include the cost of certain Commonwealth officers who have been used to obtain the information referred to in the replies to questions 1 and 2. The answer to the final question is " No ". I refer the honorable member to my answer to his question 4. {: #subdebate-41-3-s2 .speaker-KX7} ##### Mr Ward: d asked the Prime Minister, upon notice - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Is Vladimir Petrov at all times and in all places provided with a guard by the Commonwealth security service? 1. If so, where was the guard when Petrov was arrested at Surfer's Paradise, Queensland, on the 27th November last and charged with drunkenness? 2. Was it on the advice of the security service that Petrov failed to answer the charge and thereby forfeited his bail money? 3. Would it have, been a function of the service to take steps to see that Petrov attended the court to answer the charge which had been preferred against him? 4. If so, why did the service not act in this way? {: #subdebate-41-3-s3 .speaker-F4T} ##### Sir Arthur, Fadden:
Treasurer · MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · CP -- The Prime Minister has replied- as follows: - 1 to 5. It is. a long-established practice not to disclose the activities of the Australian Security Intelligence Organization in individual cases, and I have already told the honorable member that I do not propose to answer any questions relating to the guarding of the Petrovs. For the information of the honorable member, I add that it is a common practice in Queensland for persons who have been arrested, charged with drunkenness and then released on bail not to appear to answer the charge. In such cases the presiding magistrate orders the forfeiture of the bail and the police do not ordinarily pursue the matter further. {:#subdebate-41-4} #### Ministerial Staffs {: #subdebate-41-4-s0 .speaker-KX7} ##### Mr Ward: d asked the Prime Minister, upon notice - * What persons, showing their various classifications, duties and salaries, are employed on the persona] staffs of (a) the Prime Minister, and (b) each Minister? {: #subdebate-41-4-s1 .speaker-F4T} ##### Sir Arthur Fadden:
CP -- The Prime Minister has replied as follows: - >I have asked for an up-to-date list to be prepared. At this stage I am able to refer to the overall establishment figures. The establishment records are very interesting. They show that the total personal staff employed by the present Ministry is 92 and that the personal staff for the Chifley Ministry in 1949 was 99. They also show that the honorable member, when Minister for Territories and Transport, had a personal staff of eight, which is greater than the personal staff of each present-day Minister, including myself. {:#subdebate-41-5} #### Ministerial Travelling Allowances {: #subdebate-41-5-s0 .speaker-KX7} ##### Mr Ward: d asked the Prime Minister, upon notice - >What was the total amount received in each of the last five years as travelling allowances by (a) the Prime Minister, and (b) each Minister? {: #subdebate-41-5-s1 .speaker-F4T} ##### Sir Arthur Fadden:
CP -- The Prime Minister has replied as follows: - >The extraction of this information from records is a very difficult task administratively and one for which I can see no useful purpose. Therefore I do not propose, unless otherwise directed by this House, to make available the details requested by the honorable member. However, Ministers receive travelling allowance in accordance wilh the recommendations of the independent Committee of Inquiry into the Salaries and Allowances of Members of the Parliament. Parliament adopted these recommendations, viz., Prime Minister, £10 10s. a day; Ministers and Leader of the Opposition, £7 7s. a day, while outside Canberra and their home base. Staff of the Leader of the Opposition {: #subdebate-41-5-s2 .speaker-4U4} ##### Mr Killen: n asked the Prime Minister, upon notice - >What persons whose salaries are paid by the Government showing their various classifications, duties and salaries, are employed on the personal staff of- the Leader of the Opposition? {: #subdebate-41-5-s3 .speaker-F4T} ##### Sir Arthur Fadden:
CP -- The Prime Minister has replied as follows: - >Private Secretary, £1,667-£1,857; Private Secretary, £1,577-£1,757; Assistant" Private Secretary, £767-£947; Typist (Secretarial), £722-£772; Clerical Assistant, £622-£662. The occupants of these positions receive the maximum of their salary range, with the exception of the Clerical Assistant, whose present salary point is in the middle of the range. {:#subdebate-41-6} #### Hire. Purchase Agreements {: #subdebate-41-6-s0 .speaker-JAG} ##### Mr Crean: n asked the Treasurer, upon notice - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. What was the estimated total hire-purchase debt in Australia at quarterly intervals commencing with the quarter ended March, 1954?' 1. How much of this debt was owed to (a) finance companies and (b) banking institutions? {: #subdebate-41-6-s1 .speaker-F4T} ##### Sir Arthur Fadden:
CP -- The answers to the honorable member's questions are as follows: - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. The- hire purchase statistics collected and published by the Commonwealth Bureau of Census and Statistics relate only to hire-purchase agreements made in respect of goods sold by retail. As they do not cover wholesale hirepurchase agreements (i.e. agreements financing retailers' stocks), the agreements of businesses which finance hire purchase exclusively for their own employees, or hire-purchase agreements financed by retailers, estimates of total hirepurchase debt are not available. The following table sets out the available figures. {: type="1" start="2"} 0. Separate figures are not available for publication. {:#subdebate-41-7} #### Treasury-bills {: #subdebate-41-7-s0 .speaker-JAG} ##### Mr Crean: n asked the Treasurer, upon notice - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. What is the distinction between what are called: (a) internal treasury-bills and (b) external treasury-bills? 1. In what circumstances are treasury-bills allotted to the various trading banks? 2. In what circumstances are treasury-bills so allotted redeemed? {: #subdebate-41-7-s1 .speaker-F4T} ##### Sir Arthur Fadden:
CP -- The answers to the honorable member's questions are as follows: - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Internal treasury-bills are the securities issued upon the investment authorized by the Audit Act, e.g., of cash balances available in the Trust Fund. They are not available outside the Commonwealth Treasury. External or public treasurybills are initially issued by the Commonwealth Treasury to the Commonwealth Bank. 1. The Commonwealth Bank allots treasurybills from its own portfolio to the trading banks as a short term investment for their liquid funds. 2. Al the maturity of the treasury-bills so allotted by the Commonwealth Bank, the trading banks receive redemption in cash and may or may not seek new bills according to their liquidity position. If the trading banks require cash before maturity of the bills, the Commonwealth Bank is prepared to rediscount them at a rate quoted on application. {:#subdebate-41-8} #### Commonwealth Employment Service {: #subdebate-41-8-s0 .speaker-KNM} ##### Mr E JAMES HARRISON:
BLAXLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP on asked the Minister for Labour and National Service, upon notice - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. How many male and female workers, respectively, with Auburn, Lidcombe, Berala and Regent's Park postal addresses have reported to the (a) Granville, and (b) Homebush offices of the Commonwealth Employment Service for (i) sickness benefit, and (ii) unemployment benefit since 1st January, 1957? 1. How many vacancies for employment exist at present in the records of the same offices? 2. How many of these vacancies relate to factories in Auburn, Lidcombe, Berala and Regent's Park, respectively? {: #subdebate-41-8-s1 .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr HAROLD HOLT:
HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP -- The answers to the honorable member's questions are as follows: - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. The information relating to applications for unemployment benefit is not available and could only be obtained by making special dissections. This would involve staff time and expense which I feel could not be justified. Claims for sickness benefit are usually lodged at the offices of the Department of Social Services, and not at the District Office of the Commonwealth Employment Service. 1. As with all district employment offices, Granville and' Homebush offices hold records of vacancies in all parts of the State. Those held on 21st May in regard to employers in the districts served by those two offices were - {:#subdebate-41-9} #### Accommodation of Immigrants {: #subdebate-41-9-s0 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr Whitlam: m asked the Minister for' Labour and National Service, upon notice^ - >What was the greatest number of migrants from (a) the British Isles, and (b) other countries accommodated in migrant hostels at any one time in each year since the hostels were first operated? {: #subdebate-41-9-s1 .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr HAROLD HOLT:
HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP -- The answers to the honorable member's questions are as follows: - >Statistics on the basis sought by the honorable member are not available for years prior to 1952. The following table shows the greatest number of migrants accommodated in hostels in each year since 1952. It will be noted that peak accommodation occurs in different months each year, and this is governed by fluctuations in recruitment overseas and availability of shipping. The relative numbers of migrants from the British Isles and other countries fluctuate from month to month for the same reason. Unemployment in Tasmania. {: #subdebate-41-9-s2 .speaker-JO8} ##### Mr Barnard:
BASS, TASMANIA d asked the Minister for Labour and National Service, upon notice - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. What was the number of unemployed registered at all Commonwealth. Employment Offices in Tasmania in the months of January, February, March and April, 1957? 1. What is the total number of unemployed in Tasmania, including those who are receiving unemployment benefit and those who are registered but not receiving benefit, and of this number how many are listed at the Launceston office? {: #subdebate-41-9-s3 .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr HAROLD HOLT:
HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP -- The answer to the honorable member's questions is as follows: - 1 and 2. Except at the taking of a census it is not practicable to ascertain the number of unemployed in any locality. However, the numbers of persons registered for employment with the Commonwealth Employment Service and the numbers receiving unemployment benefit in Tasmania in the period referred to by the honorable member were - The figures of persons registered for employment are of persons who claimed when registering with the Commonwealth Employment Service that they were not employed and who were recorded as unplaced at the dates shown. The figures include - (i) persons who have been referred to employers, but whose placement had not been confirmed; (ii) persons who may have obtained employment without notifying the Commonwealth Employment Service and whose applications for employment had not been lapsed, and (iii) persons receiving unemployment benefit. The figures of persons receiving unemployment benefit relate to the day following the dates shown. The number of persons registered for employment at the Launceston District Employment Office at 26th April was 234 (172 males and 62 females), and the number receiving unemployment benefit at 27th April was 61 (57 males and 5 females). {:#subdebate-41-10} #### National Service {: #subdebate-41-10-s0 .speaker-KX7} ##### Mr Ward: d asked the Minister for Labour and National Service, upon notice - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. How many national service trainees have died during the course of their training since the present scheme was inaugurated? 1. In how many cases was death due to an accident? 2. In how many cases was compensation paid to dependants by the Commonwealth? 3. What was the total amount of compensation paid? {: #subdebate-41-10-s1 .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr HAROLD HOLT:
HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP -- The answers to the honorable member's questions are as follows: - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Thirty-six. 1. Fifteen. 2. Thirteen. 3. £13,390. {:#subdebate-41-11} #### Sulphuric Acid {: #subdebate-41-11-s0 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr Whitlam: m asked the Minister for Defence Production, upon notice - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Why did the production of sulphuric acid drop from 472,000 tons in the period September, 1955, to February, 1956, to 409,000 tons in the period September, 1956, to February, 1957, and from 237,000 tons in the period December, 1955, to February, 1956, to 209,000 tons in the period December, 1956, to February, 1957? 1. What proportion of these tonnages was produced from Australian pyrites? 2. Was bounty paid to A.C.F. and Shirley's Fertilizers Limited, Australian Fertilizers Limited, Commonwealth Fertilizers and Chemicals Limited, Cresco Fertilizers (W.A.) Limited, and Cuming Smith and and Mount Lyell Farmers Fertilizers Limited in respect of sulphuric acid produced in 1954- 55 and 1955-56, and also to Sulphuric Acid Limited and Sulphuric Corporation Proprietary Limited in respect of sulphuric acid produced in 1955- 56? {: type="1" start="4"} 0. From what locality in Australia did each of these companies secure the pyrites from which it produced sulphuric acid in each of these years? 1. What profit did each of these companies make in each of these years in terms of section ten of the Sulphuric Acid Bounty Act 1954? {: #subdebate-41-11-s1 .speaker-JOI} ##### Mr Beale:
LP -- The answers to the honorable member's questions are as follows: - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Official statistics on a monthly basis are not maintained. The nearest available statistics arc as follows: 475,303 tons of acid were produced between 1st October, 1955, and 31st March, 1956, whereas only 439,030 tons of acid were produced between 1st October, 1956, and 31st March, 1957. Acid production in the latter period was reduced because stocks of superphosphate had reached extremely high levels resulting from a lack of demand which, in turn, stemmed mainly from the wet weather andfloods experienced in southeastern Australia in the winter and spring of 1956. The production between 1st January, 1956, and 31st March, 1956, was 236,700 tons whereas it was 244,699 tons between 1st January, 1957, and 31st March, 1957. The latter figure was not as great as was expected for the same reasons set out above. 1. The proportion of these tonnages is as follows: - (a) 1st October, 1955, to 31st March, 1956: Pyrites, 27.2 per cent.; other local materials, 12.9 per cent.; brimstone, balance. (b) 1st October, 1956, to 31st March, 1957: Pyrites, 30.9 per cent.; other local materials, 19 per cent.; brimstone, balance. (c) 1st January, 1956, to 31st March. 1956: Pyrites, 26.6 per cent.; other local materials, 15 per cent.; brimstone, balance. (d) 1st January, 1957, to 31st March, 1957: Pyrites, 32.2 per cent.; other local materials, 16.4 per cent.; brimstone, balance. 2. Yes. 3. Information provided by pyrites-consumers discloses the following position relating to the period 1954-56:- A.C.F. and Shirley's Fertilizers Limited. - Supplier of pyrites is Mount Morgan Limited. Australian Fertilizers Limited. - **Major supplier** is Lake George Mines Proprietary Limited with lesser quantities from Mount Morgan Limited. Commonwealth Fertilizers and Chemicals Limited. - **Major supplier** is Mount Lyell Mining and Railway Company Limited with minor quantities from Mount Morgan Limited. Cresco Fertilizers (WA) Limited. - Supplier of pyrites is Norseman Gold Mines No Liability. Cuming Smith and Mount Lyell Farmers Fertilizers Limited. - Supplier of pyrites is Norseman Gold Mines No Liability. A trial quantity was also received from Gold Mines of Kalgoorlie. Sulphuric Acid Limited. - Supplier of pyrites is Nairne Pyrites Limited. Sulphide Corporation Limited. - Supplier of pyrites is Mount Morgan Limited. {: type="1" start="5"} 0. In the case of every company eligible for bounty in 1954-55, profit, inclusive of bounty, was below the 12½ per cent. of capital as defined in Sulphuric Acid Bounty Act 1954. In the case of Commonwealth Fertilizers and Chemicals Limited, Cresco Fertilizers (W.A.) Limited, Cuming Smith and Mount Lyell Farmers Fertilizers Limited, and Sulphuric Acid Limited, profit in 1955-56 was below the 12½ per cent. limit, the accounts of the other companies are being examined at the present time. {:#subdebate-41-12} #### Aircraft Production {: #subdebate-41-12-s0 .speaker-JF7} ##### Mr Beazley: y asked the Minister for Defence Production, upon notice - >How many persons were employed in Australia by (a) the Commonwealth Government and (b) private enterprise in the production of aircraft for defence in each year from 1948-49 to 1955-56, inclusive, and at the most recent date for which information is available? {: #subdebate-41-12-s1 .speaker-JOI} ##### Mr Beale:
LP -- The answers to the honorable member's questions are as follows: - >Records are not maintained to differentiate between those employed in the aircraft industry on production and those engaged on maintenance work. The following figures show the total employment on production plus maintenance in aircraft establishments handling defence orders over the period in question: - {:#subdebate-41-13} #### George Town Council Rates {: #subdebate-41-13-s0 .speaker-JO8} ##### Mr Barnard: d asked the Minister for Supply, upon notice - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Is an ex gratia payment in lieu of rates now being made to the George Town Council, Tasmania, in respect of the Australian Aluminium Production Commission's works at Bell Bay? 1. If so, upon what basis and by whom was the amount fixed? 2. When did payment commence, and what amount has been paid in each year? {: #subdebate-41-13-s1 .speaker-JOI} ##### Mr Beale:
LP -- The answers to the honorabde member's questions are as follows: - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Answer is "Yes". 1. Upon basis agreed between the Minister for Supply and the Premier of Tasmania. 2. Payments commenced on 1st July, 1954. £3,000 paid each year. {:#subdebate-41-14} #### Aborigines {: #subdebate-41-14-s0 .speaker-JVU} ##### Mr Nelson:
NORTHERN TERRITORY, NORTHERN TERRITORY n asked the Minister for Territories the following question, upon notice: - >What number of full-blood aborigines in the Northern Territory at 31st December, 1956, and 30th April, 1957, respectively (a) was enrolled in the Northern Territory electoral roll and eligible to vote at Legislative Council and Federal Elections; and (b) had full citizenship rights? {: #subdebate-41-14-s1 .speaker-ZL6} ##### Mr Hasluck:
Minister for Territories · CURTIN, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP -- The answer to the honorable member's question is as follows: - {: type="a" start="a"} 0. As at 31st December, 1956, there were five full-blood aborigines in the Northern Territory who had full citizenship rights and were entitled to enrol on the Northern Territory electoral roll. No such enrolment was effected. As at 30th April, 1957, the number had increased from five to six, but enrolment had not been effected at that date. 1. See answer to (a) above. {:#subdebate-41-15} #### Japanese Salvage Operations {: #subdebate-41-15-s0 .speaker-KVR} ##### Mr Swartz: z asked the Minister for Territories, upon notice - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Have operations for the salvage of sunken ships been commenced at Rabaul by Japanese technicians? 1. Will similar operations be undertaken by the same organization at other harbours in New Guinea? 2. What is the basis of payment for such contracts? {: #subdebate-41-15-s1 .speaker-ZL6} ##### Mr Hasluck:
LP -- The answers to the honorable member's questions are as follows: - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Yes. A Japanese salvage company, Nanyo Boeki Kaisha Limited, of Tokyo, commenced operations earlier this year on the salvage of sunken vessels in Rabaul Harbour owned by private interests which acquired them by purchase from the former Commonwealth Disposals Commission. {: type="i" start="2"} 0. No. Towards the end of last year, the Administration of Papua and New Guinea invited public tenders for the right to salvage Administrationowned war surplus materials lying below highwater mark in eleven specified areas in the Territory. The Administration has accepted the tender submitted by an Australian company, Anglo Pacific Trading Company Proprietary Limited, of Melbourne, in association with a Japanese salvage organization, Matsukura Company Limited, of Tokyo. Salvage operations by the successful tenderer have not yet been commenced. 3. (a) The salvage operations, being carried out at Rabaul by Nanyo Boeki Kaisha Limited are in respect of contracts made by that company with private interests, and the basis of payment is. not known. (b) The public tenders invited by the Administration in respect of Administration underwater salvage, provide for payment to the Administration on a royalty basis in respect of materials salvaged, that is to say; payment of a percentage as follows: - (i) where the materials are sold by the successful tenderer, a percentage of the sale value based on the f.o.b. Territory port value for shipment overseas; such value to be the value as estimated by the Treasurer of the Territory; 1. where the materials are retained by the successful tenderer for his own use, a percentage of the value of such materials; such value to be the value as estimated by the Treasurer of the Territory; 2. in relation to scrap ferrous materials included in the said materials, the tenderer may submit a price per ton to be paid to the Administration in lieu of royalty. {:#subdebate-41-16} #### Desalination of Water {: #subdebate-41-16-s0 .speaker-KXI} ##### Mr Webb: b asked the Minister in Charge of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization, upon notice - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Is great progress being made in the United States of America in extracting salt from brackish water? 1. Would success in this experiment be of tremendous advantage in the development of certain areas of Australia? 2. Are similar experiments being carried out by the Commonwealth- Scientific and Industrial Research Organization; if not, will he suggest that this be done? {: #subdebate-41-16-s1 .speaker-JWE} ##### Mr Casey:
LP -- The answers to the honorable member's questions are as follows: - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. A large-scale programme of investigations directed towards the use of saline water is being carried on in the United States of America largely under government auspices. Many processes have been investigated and equipment based on some of these is commercially available. Allowing for differences between Australian and American fuel and electricity costs, desalting by any of the processes developed so far to the stage of commercial availability would be very expensive in Australia. 1. In many parts of Australia shortage of water limits agricultural and industrial development, and processes capable of producing fresh water from available brackish water at low cost would be of considerable value. However, the use of such water would probably be limited to stock watering. There seems little prospect of obtaining fresh water sufficiently cheaply for irrigation. 2. Officers of the C.S.I.R.O. are keeping in close touch with the progress of research on desalting throughout the world. The Commonwealth, through the C.S.I.R.O. and the Department of National Development, is supporting an international co-operative investigation in the Netherlands of electrodialysis, a promising method which is being investigated also in the United States of America and in South Africa. The reductions in cost that might be expected from further improvements in this method or other established methods; are relatively modest, and officers of the C.S.I.R.O. are seeking a completely new approach to the problem.. {:#subdebate-41-17} #### Fisheries Development {: #subdebate-41-17-s0 .speaker-1V4} ##### Mr Cairns: s asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. In relation to the recommendation of the Inter-departmental Advisory Committee that money available under the Fisheries Development Trust Account should be reserved wholly for the investigation and development of major fisheries projects, what is considered to be (a) investigation and development, and (b) a major fisheries project? 1. What are the names of persons or businesses, the amounts of money, and the fisheries projects in relation to each loan made under the Fisheries Development Trust Account? 2. How many applicants have been refused, and what are their names? {: #subdebate-41-17-s1 .speaker-009MA} ##### Mr McMahon:
LP -- The answers to the honorable member's questions are as follows: - 1. (a) The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization has undertaken basic scientific research on many Australian Fisheries. In many cases, however, its work has not proceeded to the stage of investigation of the commercial potential. Before any development is planned and assisted under the Fisheries Development Trust Account it is necessary that this factor be investigated. The investigations, therefore, take the form of trial commercial fishing operations carried out by experienced fishermen with their own vessels under arrangements with the Commonwealth; experimentation in handling and processing the catch; and the survey of markets, marketing prospects and the possible economics of the industry. The information thus obtained coupled with the results of C.S.I.R.O. scientific research, is used to provide an assessment of the possibilities for the development of that particular fishery. Development under the Fisheries Development Trust Account will be directed towards the establishment of pathbreaking enterprises where private investors are not able or willing initially to provide investment funds of the magnitude required. It will take the form of share capital investment in companies or co-operatives or of loans to private enterprise, that may be required to establish all phases of a new fishery shown by the investigations to have sound commercial prospects or to organize and substantially expand an existing fishery. In some cases it could be necessary for the Government to undertake the establishment itself such as- was done in connexion with whaling. It is not proposed, however, to use the funds to replace existing financial facilities that are already available for proven commerical ventures. It is further intended that Government investment will be withdrawn as soon as a project has been soundly established and Australian operators have demonstrated their capacity and willingness to continue the development: (b) A- major fisheries project may be regarded as one- which is capable of making a substantial' contribution to fish production in Australia-- thereby increasing the existing volume of fish exports op decreasing the need for imports. {: type="1" start="2"} 0. No loans have yet. been made from the Trust Account but several major projects are at present being, investigated. 1. For obvious, reasons it is not possible- to release the names of persons or businesses, who have sought and been refused financial assistance from the fund: {:#subdebate-41-18} #### Tuna. Fishing, {: #subdebate-41-18-s0 .speaker-KVR} ##### Mr Swartz: z asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice - 1-. In what year did commercial tuna fishing commence in Australia, and which are the principal areas being used, for this, purpose? {: type="1" start="2"} 0. What was the catch, far the season just completed, and- was. this a record catch- for the industry? 1. What was the value of the recent season's catch? {: #subdebate-41-18-s1 .speaker-009MA} ##### Mr McMahon:
LP -- The answers to the honorable member's questions are as follows: - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Commercial tuna fishing, commenced in 1940 when the first tuna was canned at' Narooma, New South Wales. During the early, years of the industry difficulties were experienced in establishing a sound technique for catching the fish. Trolling was found to be expensive in terms of labour and the volume of the. catch: varied- considerably. In 1950, the Commonwealth Division of Fisheries brought the " Senibua.", an American tuna clipper, and a trained fishing crew to Australia from Samoa. This vessel demonstrated the- livebait method and pole method of fishing to fishermen on the south coast, of. New South Wales. The introduced technique was. quickly adapted to Australian boats and Australian conditions. The principal tuna fisheries now being fished are those situated off the south eastern part of' the Australian coastline and- in- South Australian waters off the west coast of that State and generally south of Kangaroo Island. 1. The catch for the 1956-57 season amounted to approximately 230 tons in South Australian waters and 1,024 tons off the. south-eastern coastline. This production, was a record catch for the industry. 2. The total value of the catch was £68,618. {:#subdebate-41-19} #### Airline- Pilots- {: #subdebate-41-19-s0 .speaker-KXZ} ##### Mr Peters:
SCULLIN, VICTORIA s asked the Minister representing the Minister for. Civil Aviation, upon notice - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. How many air pilots have left the service' of Australian airlines for positions, overseas during the past two years? 1. Has action been-, taken- to prevent representatives of overseas airlines; approaching- Australian air pilots for the purpose of offering, them increased payments to serve with, other than Australian airlines? {: #subdebate-41-19-s1 .speaker-KWH} ##### Mr Townley:
LP -- The Minister for Civil Aviation, has furnished the following replies: - 1'. As the- Department- of Civil Aviation does not maintain records relating to- the reasons why airline pilots- leave the- employ of Austraiian operators, I am unaware of the actual number of air pilots who have accepted employment with overseas operators during the last two years. However, I can assure the honorable member that there is no shortage, of experienced pilots in Australia. {: type="1" start="2"} 0. I have no knowledge of any action being taken to prevent representatives of overseas airlines approaching Australian air pilots for the purpose, of offering them greater emoluments than they at present receive in their employment with Australian operators. {:#subdebate-41-20} #### Aero Clubs {: #subdebate-41-20-s0 .speaker-KVR} ##### Mr Swartz: z asked the Minister representing the Minister for Civil Aviation, upon notice - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. What was the amount of subsidy provided by the Commonwealth to aero clubs throughout Australia during the last financial year? 1. Are aero clubs now undertaking some training of Air Training Corps cadets on behalf of the Commonwealth? 2. Is there any Commonwealth audit of Commonwealth funds provided to aero clubs? {: #subdebate-41-20-s1 .speaker-KWH} ##### Mr Townley:
LP -- The Minister, for Civil Aviation has furnished the following replies: - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. £132,435. 1. The aero clubs are continuing to train Air Training Corps cadet scholarship winners on behalf of the Commonwealth. There has been no change in the policy regarding the training of these cadets. 2. Yes. {:#subdebate-41-21} #### Canberra Airport {: #subdebate-41-21-s0 .speaker-KHY} ##### Mr Howse:
CALARE, NEW SOUTH WALES e asked the Minister representing the Minister for Civil Aviation, upon notice - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Has a reduction taken place in the number of flight schedules in and out of the Canberra airport? 1. Is the airport used by heavy passenger traffic? 2. Have airline companies other than Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited and TransAustralia Airlines applied for a licence to operate to Canberra? 3. Have these applications been refused? 4. If so, why were they refused? {: #subdebate-41-21-s1 .speaker-KWH} ##### Mr Townley:
LP -- The Minister for Civil Aviation has furnished the following replies: - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. No. 1. Yes. In the year ended 31st December, 1956, 54,558 passengers were set down and 57;928 were picked up at Canberra. 2. There have been no recent applications, the last being an application by Ansett Airways Proprietary Limited in December, 1954, to operate a Melbourne-Canberra-Sydney service. 3. Yes. Ansett Airways Proprietary Limited was refused a licence in January, 1955. 4. The licence was refused because existing licence-holders were providing adequate services to meet the needs of the travelling public. {:#subdebate-41-22} #### Herald Aircraft {: #subdebate-41-22-s0 .speaker-KVR} ##### Mr Swartz: z asked the Minister representing the Minister for Civil Aviation, upon notice - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Did some Australian airline companies place orders in the United Kingdom for the new pistonengined Herald aircraft? 1. Are the companies concerned proceeding with the purchase of this type of aircraft, or have the contracts been altered to cover turbo-propeller engined aircraft from the same aircraft manufacturer? 2. If this change has been made, when can delivery of the new aircraft be expected in Australia? {: #subdebate-41-22-s1 .speaker-KWH} ##### Mr Townley:
LP -- The Minister for Civil Aviation has furnished the following replies: - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. As far as I am aware no firm orders have been placed by any Australian airline operators for the Handley Page Herald aircraft. I believe one operator did lodge a Letter of Intent but that this has been withdrawn subsequently. 1. I have no information as to any orders placed for the turbo-propeller engined Herald aircraft. 2. The Handley Page company has indicated that deliveries of the re-engined Herald could be expected in 1958. {:#subdebate-41-23} #### Australian Coastal Shipping Commission Ships {: #subdebate-41-23-s0 .speaker-KVR} ##### Mr Swartz: z asked the Minister representing the Minister for Shipping and Transport, upon notice - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Were arrangements recently made for two Australian Shipping Commission ships to transport bulk wheat from Australia to India? 1. If so, was this a special charter or is it intended to continue the use of these two ships for the transport of cargo on overseas routes? {: #subdebate-41-23-s1 .speaker-KWH} ##### Mr Townley:
LP -- The Minister for Shipping and Transport has furnished the following replies: - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Some time ago the Australian Coastal Shipping Commission arranged for two of its vessels to carry bulk wheat to India. These voyages have now been completed. 1. The commission has arranged a number of other overseas voyages for its vessels. These voyages have been made possible by a reduction in the quantity of cargo offering in the coastal trade coupled with an increased demand for overseas shipping. At the present time there are eleven coastal vessels engaged in overseas trading. The Australian Coastal Shipping Commission is watching the position very closely and will ensure that no shortage of tonnage will occur on the Australian coast as a result of vessels engaging in overseas trade. {:#subdebate-41-24} #### Largactil {: #subdebate-41-24-s0 .speaker-2V4} ##### Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP n asked the Minister acting for the Minister for Health, upon notice - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Is a large number of aged and invalid pensioners obliged to take the drug largactil? 1. Will he place this drug on the list of free medicines? {: #subdebate-41-24-s1 .speaker-KWH} ##### Mr Townley:
LP -- The answers to the honorable member's questions are as follows: - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. The extent to which largactil is used by aged and invalid persons is not known. The main users of the drug appear to be mental hospitals. 1. Before any drug can be included in the list of pharmaceutical benefits it is necessary for the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee to consider the matter and make a recommendation to that effect. Largactil has been referred to this committee for consideration but the committee is not prepared to recommend its inclusion. {:#subdebate-41-25} #### Launceston Telephone Exchange {: #subdebate-41-25-s0 .speaker-JO8} ##### Mr Barnard: d asked the PostmasterGeneral, upon notice - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. What was the number of outstanding applications for services in Tasmania during 1954, 1955 and 1956? 1. What is the number outstanding to date? 2. What is the number now lodged with the Launceston Office? 3. How many services have been connected during 1957 to each of the following Launceston exchanges: - Central, East Launceston, South Launceston and Mowbray? {: #subdebate-41-25-s1 .speaker-KCA} ##### Mr Davidson:
CP -- The answers to the honorable member's questions are as follows: - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1954, 2,356; 1955, 1,937; 1956, 1,543. 1. 1,556. 2. 676. 3. Launceston Central, 175; East Launceston, 43; South Launceston, 115; Mowbray, 38. {:#subdebate-41-26} #### Commonwealth Health Laboratory, Toowoomba {: #subdebate-41-26-s0 .speaker-KVR} ##### Mr Swartz: z asked the Minister for the Interior, upon notice - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Is any information yet available regarding the transfer of the Commonwealth Health Laboratory, Toowoomba, Queensland, from its present site to the new hospital block? 1. Have arrangements been finalized for the provision of a post office, together with office accommodation for other Commonwealth departments, in the building at present occupied by the Commonwealth Health Laboratory? 2. In view of the accommodation difficulties being experienced by a number of Commonwealth departments in Toowoomba, will he arrange for the extensions to this building to be expedited immediately the change-over takes place? {: #subdebate-41-26-s1 .speaker-KEN} ##### Mr Fairhall:
LP -- The answers to the honorable member's questions are as follows: - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. It is estimated that the laboratory will be transferred to the new hospital block in approximately three months' time. 1. Yes. Approximately 75 per cent, of the premises will be allotted to the PostmasterGeneral's Department. The balance is to be used for other Commonwealth purposes. 2. Sketch plans and estimates have been prepared for a two-storied brick building to be erected at the rear of the existing building. Provision of funds for the new structure has been included in the draft new works programme for 1957-58. {:#subdebate-41-27} #### Hotel Kurrajong {: #subdebate-41-27-s0 .speaker-KX7} ##### Mr Ward: d asked the Minister for the Interior, upon notice - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. What additional charge has been fixed for the use of a private bathroom by the Minister for Trade at the Hotel Kurrajong, Canberra? 1. How many other rooms at the hotel are provided with a private bathroom? {: #subdebate-41-27-s1 .speaker-KEN} ##### Mr Fairhall:
LP -- The answers to the honorable member's questions are as follows: - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Three shillings per day per person. 1. None of the other guest rooms. {:#subdebate-41-28} #### Destruction of Surplus Equipment {: #subdebate-41-28-s0 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr Whitlam: m asked the Minister for the Army, upon notice - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Were national service trainees in the Holsworthy and Ingleburn areas detailed on or about the 16th April, 1957, to burn certain loughboys chests of drawers and writing tables? 1. If so, how many pieces of such equipment were burnt? 2. Where, when and how had this equipment been last used? 3. Was any attempt made to sell this equipment? {: #subdebate-41-28-s1 .speaker-K7J} ##### Mr Cramer:
LP -- The answers to the honorable member's questions are as follows: - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Yes. These items, which were no longer of any commercial value, had been condemned for destruction by the Board of Survey, members of which have had considerable experience in the economics of repair, transport and handling costs. All items examined by the Board of Survey, which had any residual value, were retained for disposal by sale. 1. Out of 1,607 pieces examined, 1,181 pieces were destroyed and 426 were retained for disposal by sale. 2. The furniture had been used since the inception of national service by personnel in the Holsworthy area and had become unserviceable over a period. For the initial period of its life, the furniture had been used in tents with consequential accelerated deterioration due to weathering. 3. No, it had no commercial value. {:#subdebate-41-29} #### Australian Military Forces {: #subdebate-41-29-s0 .speaker-KDA} ##### Mr Duthie: e asked the Minister for the Army, upon notice - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. What is the number of personnel in the Army in each of the following ranks: - LieutenantGeneral, Major-General, Brigadier, **Colonel, Lieutenant Colonel, Major, Captain,** Lieutenant, Warrant Officer Class I., Warrant Officer Class II., Staff Sergeant, Sergeant, Corporal? 1. What is the strength of other ranks in the (a) Permanent Army, and (b) Citizen Military Force? {: #subdebate-41-29-s1 .speaker-K7J} ##### Mr Cramer:
LP -- The answers to the honorable member's questions are as follows: - >1.- {:#subdebate-41-30} #### Australian War Memorial Publications {: #subdebate-41-30-s0 .speaker-KHY} ##### Mr Howse: e asked the Minister for the Army, upon notice - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Have any Australian War Memorial publications been sold to Army personnel? 1. If so, what deductions were made from the pay of Army personnel, and over what period were they made? 2. Why was this system discontinued? 3. Will he give consideration to its reintroduction? {: #subdebate-41-30-s1 .speaker-K7J} ##### Mr Cramer:
LP -- The answers to the honorable member's questions are as follows: - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Yes. 1. The system that has operated since World War II. provides for the cost of the publication to be debited in the one amount to the soldier's pay account. 3 and 4. This system has not been discontinued. {:#subdebate-41-31} #### International Court of Justice {: #subdebate-41-31-s0 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr Whitlam: m asked the Minister for External Affairs, upon notice - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Were Australian national groups appointed in 1945, 1948, 1951, 1954 and 1956, pursuant to Article 4 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice, to make nominations of candidates for election to the Court? 1. Did the group in 1945 consist of the Australian Attorney-General, Chief Justice and Solicitor-General and the Dean of the Faculty of Law within the University of Melbourne and, .in the other years, did the groups consist of the Attorney-General, Chief Justice and SolicitorGeneral and the Dean of the Faculty of Law within the University of Sydney? 2. Did the group in 1945 nominate K. H. Bailey, Australia, **Sir Arnold** D. McNair, United Kingdom, H. Klaested, .Norway, and J. G. Guerero, El Salvador, and did it do so unanimously? 3. Did the group in 1951 nominate C. de Visscher, Belgium, H. Klaested, Norway, G. H. Hackworth, United States of America, and **Sir Benegal** Rau, India, and did it do so unanimously? 4. In 1956 - (a) did the group nominate **Sir Percy** Spender, Australia; (b) on what dates did the group meet; (c) on what dates did the Chief Justice participate in the group's deliberations; (d) why did the Chief Justice not participate in the deliberations on the other dates; (e) was the Secretary-General of the United Nations informed that the group made the nomination by majority and not unanimously; (f) did the group consult, pursuant to Article 6 of the Statute, with courts, law schools and professional bodies; if so, which; and (g) was the Secretary-General informed of the extent of any such consultations? {: #subdebate-41-31-s1 .speaker-JWE} ##### Mr Casey:
LP -- The answers to the honorable member's questions are as follows: - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Yes. In 1956 two groups were constituted, the first to consider nominations for the casual vacancy caused by the death of Judge Hsu Mo, and the second to consider nominations for the regular election to be held in 1957. 1. The groups consisted of the persons holding, at the material times, the offices mentioned by the honorable member, save that in November, 1956, in the absence overseas of the Solicitor-General, **Mr. J.** Q. Ewens, who held the office of Acting Solicitor-General, was appointed to the second group. 2. 4 and 5. The groups in 1945 and 1951, and the second group in 1956, did nominate .the candidates mentioned by the honorable member. The meetings of the national groups are private, and information as to their proceedings is not publicly available. The position of the Chief Justice in relation to the second group in 1956 is made clear in a letter dated 28th November, 1956, to the Attorney-General in the following terms: - Owing to the sittings of the High Court it would not be possible for me to attend the meeting summoned in connexion with the International Court. .But in any event, as I understand you are to put forward a nomination on behalf of the Government, I would not consider it appropriate for me as a Chief Justice to support or oppose the proposal. Army Canteens Service. {: #subdebate-41-31-s2 .speaker-K7J} ##### Mr Cramer:
LP Cramer. - On 21st May, the honorable member for Brisbane **(Mr. George Lawson),** addressed to me a question relating to the Army Canteens Service staff in Queensland. As a result of my inquiries I have ascertained that some canteen managers are working longer than 40 hours per week but, at the very outside, not more than 50 hours per week. The award rate on a 40 hour week basis for a manager with two or less staff is £14 12s. 6d. The exempt rate which permits a manager to work more than 40 hours per week is £17 5s. Australian Army Canteen Services pay £17 12s. Canteen Assistant: The award rate for 40 hours per week is £14 ls. Australian Army Canteen Services pay £14 2s. for 40 hours per week. Where a canteen attendant works in excess of 40 hours - which never exceeds more than 50 hours at any time - he is either paid overtime or allowed time off. The award rates provide for two Weeks' holiday per year. Australian Army Canteen Services allows its staff three weeks' holiday per year. In some one-man canteens, e.g., Enoggera, where the .manager is on duty seven days per week but does not work in excess of 50 hours per week, he is allowed an extra two weeks' annual leave, making a total of five weeks in all. The officer in charge of canteens in Northern Command advises that he has had no growls or complaints whatsoever -from his staff regarding working conditions or the hours they work. -In fact, he has no problems at all when he want to engage civilian staff in most areas. {:#subdebate-41-32} #### Food Preservation {: #subdebate-41-32-s0 .speaker-KVR} ##### Mr Swartz: z asked the Minister in charge of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization, upon notice - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Have experiments been carried out by the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization with antibiotics for food preservation? 1. If so, -what results have been achieved? {: #subdebate-41-32-s1 .speaker-JWE} ##### Mr Casey:
LP -- The answer to the honorable member's questions are as follows: - >The C.S.I.R.O. has not itself carried out any experiments on the use of antibiotics for the preservation of food. However, the Division of Food Preservation and Transport has kept in close touch with overseas developments. So far public health authorities throughout the world have adopted a very cautious attitude to the possibility of using antibiotics in this way. {:#subdebate-41-33} #### Rainmaking {: #subdebate-41-33-s0 .speaker-JWU} ##### Mr ALLAN FRASER:
EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP r asked the Minister in Charge of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization, upon notice - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Did the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization conduct largescale rainmaking experiments in the Snowy Mountains Hydro-electric Authority area on the 13th March, 1936, the date on which Cooma experienced unprecedented floods? 1. Were the treated clouds from the experimental area blown over the Cooma creek catchment area? 2. If the answer to the first part of this question is " Yes ", will compensation be paid, having in mind that losses totalled thousands of pounds? 3. Were the experiments at the request of the Authority; if so, will he discuss the matter with the Minister for National Development? {: #subdebate-41-33-s1 .speaker-JWE} ##### Mr Casey:
LP -- The answers to the honorable member's questions are as follows: - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. No rainmaking experiments were carried out in the Snowy Mountains area on 13th March, 1956. The nearest previous seeding was carried out on 7th March, and the next seeding was carried out on 15th April, 1956. 1. See No. 1 above. 2. See No. 1 above. 3. See No. 1 above. The rainmaking experiments which are carried out are as a result of collaboration between the Snowy Mountains Authority and the C.S.I.R.O. {:#subdebate-41-34} #### Aircraft Production {: #subdebate-41-34-s0 .speaker-JSU} ##### Mr Bryant: t asked the Minister for Defence Production, upon notice - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Has any decision been made as to the manufacture of new types of defence aircraft in Australia? 1. If so, how are the contracts to be apportioned between the government aircraft factories and other manufacturers. {: #subdebate-41-34-s1 .speaker-JOI} ##### Mr Beale:
LP -- The Government believes that an aircraft manufacturing industry is essential to Australia and, pursuant to this view has decided in principle upon the manufacture of a new modern fighter aircraft in Australia. The present intention is that this aircraft will be produced by the Commonwealth Aircraft Corporation.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 22 May 1957, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1957/19570522_reps_22_hor15/>.